District Commissioners must issue land-transfer NOCs or speaking orders within thirty days under Section 21A.

Petitioner No. 1 was a co-pattadar in land measuring 1 Katha 3 Chattak covered by Dag No. 283 and Patta No. 120 at Tarapur Part-V, Cachar, Assam. The co-pattadars entered into an agreement for sale of the land with Petitioner No. 2 and jointly applied to the District Commissioner, Cachar, for sale permission/NOC.

The application was received under Application No. 2183 on 11 July 2025 and was forwarded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, who received it under Docket No. 1031 on 21 July 2025. As the application remained unprocessed, the petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court seeking appropriate directions.

The State submitted that sale certification/composite land sale transfer was a notified public service, but online applications had not yet been implemented in Cachar; it therefore requested that the authorities be directed to decide the pending application within a reasonable period.

1. Whether the District Commissioner was required to issue the NOC or pass a speaking order disposing of the application within thirty days under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Whether, in view of the prolonged non-disposal of the petitioners’ application, the Court should direct the respondent authorities to complete the statutory and prescribed administrative process within a fixed period.

The Court applied Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration (Assam Amendment) Acts of 2009 and 2021, which prohibits acceptance for registration of specified non-testamentary instruments relating to immovable property without a NOC from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner.

The proviso to Section 21A mandates that the NOC must be issued within thirty days of receipt of the application; if it is not issued, a speaking order giving reasons must be passed within the same period.

The Court also applied the Standard Operating Procedure notified by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department on 9 September 2025, which prescribes the procedure involving application, Circle Officer’s report, examination by the Nodal Officer, Special Branch verification, and the District Commissioner’s final decision, with disposal or a speaking order within thirty days.

The Court treated the thirty-day period under Section 21A as a statutory mandate requiring the District Commissioner either to issue the NOC describing the property or to pass a reasoned speaking order if the NOC was not granted.

The petitioners’ application had remained pending since 11 July 2025, and the authorities had not brought it to any final conclusion despite the lapse of more than a year.

The Court further noted that the State’s own SOP prescribed a structured process for considering such applications and independently required disposal within thirty days.

Accordingly, rather than deciding the merits of the proposed transfer, the Court directed the competent authority to complete the statutory and SOP-based process within a defined period.

The decision—whether issuance of the NOC, rejection, or any further reasoned order—was directed to be made within thirty days from the date the petitioners submitted a copy of the Court’s order before the District Commissioner.

No order as to costs was made.