Land authorities must issue a transfer NOC or pass a speaking order within the statutory period.

The petitioner purchased a plot measuring 2 Kathas 5 Lessas at Abhayapuri, Bongaigaon, under a registered sale deed dated 17 September 1998, after obtaining sale permission. Her name was mutated in the revenue records in 1998. Subsequently, pursuant to governmental directions, the land was recorded as Government Khas land. Following earlier writ proceedings, the petitioner’s name was restored in the revenue records by an order dated 30 March 2024.

The petitioner applied online on 19 September 2024 for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the notified service “Composite Land Sale Transfer.” The application was rejected because an up-to-date land revenue receipt had not been submitted.

She submitted a fresh application on 29 August 2025 after curing the stated deficiency. The application was not finally disposed of; it was sent to the Land Record Assistant for a fresh report. The Circle Officer subsequently reported that the land was being seen as “wetland” and that its zonal value rate was unavailable.

The petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court contending that the authorities were required either to issue the NOC or pass a reasoned order within the prescribed period under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012.

Whether the respondent authorities could keep the petitioner’s application for an NOC for sale pending indefinitely on the grounds that the land was allegedly “wetland” and that its zonal value rate was unavailable.

Whether the authorities were required to issue the NOC or pass a speaking order within the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether the processing of the petitioner’s application was governed by the Standard Operating Procedure dated 9 September 2025 concerning inter-religious land transfers.

Whether the notified service “Composite Land Sale Transfer” was required to be provided or rejected within the stipulated period under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 and the notification dated 11 November 2022.

The Court applied Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in Assam, which requires the Deputy Commissioner to issue an NOC for the transfer of covered immovable property or, if the NOC is not issued, to pass a speaking order within thirty days of receipt of the application.

Under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, particularly Sections 2(h), 4, 5, 6 and 7, an eligible person has a right to obtain a notified service within the stipulated period, and the Designated Public Servant must either provide the service or reject the application by a reasoned and appealable order.

The notification dated 11 November 2022 declared “Composite Land Sale Transfer” as a notified service, identified the Deputy Commissioner or his nominee as the Designated Public Servant, recognised a person recorded in the Jamabandi as eligible, and prescribed a forty-five-day period for delivery of the service.

The Court also applied the principle that administrative authorities must give reasons for decisions affecting rights, particularly where the applicant’s property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution are implicated.

The Standard Operating Procedure dated 9 September 2025 prescribed a special procedure for cases involving buyers and sellers belonging to different religious communities.

The petitioner’s name appeared in the Jamabandi, making her eligible to seek the notified service under the notification dated 11 November 2022.

Her application dated 29 August 2025 had not been finally allowed or rejected; the Circle Officer’s report was merely interim and raised factual concerns regarding the land’s alleged “wetland” status and the absence of a zonal value rate.

Those matters could be examined by the competent authority, but they did not justify keeping the application pending indefinitely.

The Court held that the authorities were statutorily bound to complete the process within the prescribed period and, if refusing the NOC, to issue a speaking order containing reasons.

The Court further observed, prima facie, that the inter-religious-transfer SOP dated 9 September 2025 was inapplicable to the petitioner’s case.

Since more than ten months had elapsed without a final decision, the continued pendency violated the statutory scheme governing NOC issuance and notified public services.

If any further document or clarification was required, the District Commissioner was directed to communicate the deficiency in writing within fifteen days of receiving the order; in that event, the thirty-day period would run from the date on which the petitioner cured the deficiency.

The Court did not itself direct issuance of the NOC, but required a lawful and reasoned final decision.

There was no order as to costs.