Section 21A mandates issuance of a land-transfer NOC or speaking order within thirty days.

The petitioners sought to transfer eight kathas of land situated at Pargana Prathapghar, Mouza Rajabari, District Sribhumi, Assam, pursuant to an agreement for sale between petitioner nos. 1 and 2, as owners, and petitioner no. 3, for a consideration of ₹42,00,000.

Since the buyers and sellers belonged to different religious communities, the petitioners applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, on 11 February 2026. As the relevant area had not undergone official survey operations, the online application facility was unavailable and the application was submitted offline, with acknowledgement. The application remained unprocessed for more than five months, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking completion of the NOC process.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were required to process and conclude the petitioners’ application for an NOC under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, within the statutory period of thirty days.

2. Whether, if the NOC was not issued within thirty days, the competent authority was required to pass a speaking order stating the reasons for non-issuance.

3. Whether, in view of the prolonged pendency of the application, the Court should direct the authorities to conclude the process within a fixed time.

The Court applied Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration (Assam Amendment) Acts of 2009 and 2021, which requires a No Objection Certificate from the Deputy Commissioner before registration of specified non-testamentary instruments concerning immovable property.

The proviso to Section 21A mandates that the NOC be issued within thirty days of receipt of the application and, if it is not issued, that a speaking order with reasons be passed within the same period. The Court also applied the Standard Operating Procedure notified by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department on 9 September 2025, which prescribes the processing sequence involving the District Commissioner, Circle Officer, Nodal Officer, Special Branch and the final decision on issuance or rejection of the NOC.

The Court found that the offline mode of submission was permissible because the online facility was unavailable for the concerned area, a position accepted by the State authorities. The petitioners’ application had been submitted on 11 February 2026 but had not reached finality even after more than five months.

This delay was inconsistent with the mandatory thirty-day timeline under Section 21A and the corresponding requirement under the 9 September 2025 SOP. Accordingly, rather than keeping the writ petition pending, the Court directed the respondent authorities, particularly the District Commissioner, to complete the process in accordance with the statute and SOP. The Court further protected the petitioners’ procedural rights by requiring any deficiency in the application to be communicated in writing within fifteen days.

If any further document or clarification was required, the petitioners were to be informed in writing within fifteen days, and the thirty-day period would run from the date on which the deficiencies were cured. No costs were imposed.