District Commissioners must issue land-transfer NOCs or reasoned refusals within thirty days of application.

The petitioners claimed ownership of two plots of land measuring 2 Kathas 11 Chataks and 2 Kathas 5 Chataks, covered by Dag Nos. 455 and 456, situated at Ambikapur Part-X, Cachar, Assam.

The petitioner Nos. 1–3 entered into an agreement for sale of the plots with petitioner No. 4 on 26 March 2025.

Since Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in Assam, requires a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from the Deputy Commissioner before registration of specified instruments relating to immovable property, the petitioners submitted an application for land-sale permission before the District Commissioner, Cachar, on 11 June 2025.

Despite the expiry of approximately one year, the application was neither decided nor was an NOC issued.

The petitioners thereafter submitted a representation on 12 June 2026, which also elicited no response.

They consequently approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking directions for disposal of the application and issuance of the NOC.

The State respondents submitted that the application was required to be processed under Section 21A and the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) notified on 9 September 2025.

Whether the District Commissioner was required to dispose of the petitioners’ application for an NOC within the statutory period prescribed under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended?

Whether the respondents’ failure to decide the application for more than one year justified a direction requiring the District Commissioner to bring the process to finality in accordance with Section 21A and the SOP dated 9 September 2025?

The Court applied Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Assam Amendments, which prohibits acceptance for registration of specified non-testamentary instruments relating to immovable property without the requisite NOC and requires the Deputy Commissioner either to issue the NOC or pass a reasoned speaking order within thirty days of receiving the application.

The Court also applied the State Government’s SOP dated 9 September 2025, which prescribes the procedure involving the District Commissioner, Circle Officer, Nodal Officer and, where required, the Special Branch, and reiterates the thirty-day period for disposal.

The Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 further recognises the applicant’s right to receive a notified public service within the prescribed period, or to receive a reasoned rejection containing information regarding appeal rights and the appellate authority.

A “speaking order” must expressly state the reasons supporting the decision, consistent with natural justice and fair procedure.

The Court also recognised that the applicants’ claim implicated the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A, which, although not a fundamental right, constitutes a constitutional and human right.

The Court found that Section 21A imposed a clear statutory obligation on the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to decide the NOC application within thirty days, either by issuing the NOC or by passing a reasoned order if the NOC was not granted.

The SOP likewise required the authorities to complete the prescribed administrative process and take a decision within the same period.

Since the petitioners’ application dated 11 June 2025 remained pending for more than one year, the respondents had failed to comply with both the statutory mandate and the prescribed administrative procedure.

The Court therefore considered it necessary to direct the District Commissioner to complete the process, while leaving the substantive decision—grant, rejection, or further query—to be made in accordance with law and through a speaking order where applicable.

The process was directed to be completed within thirty days from the date on which the petitioners submitted a copy of the Court’s order at the District Commissioner’s office.

No order as to costs was made.