Under Section 21A, the Deputy Commissioner must issue an NOC or speaking order within 30 days.

The four petitioners, members of the same family, claimed inheritance, mutation and possession over two agricultural land parcels measuring 10 Bighas in total, covered by Dag Nos. 87 and 89 under Periodic Patta No. 8 in Nagaon district.

Petitioner No. 4 was suffering from several ailments and had been advised to obtain advanced medical treatment outside Assam.

To meet the medical expenses, the petitioners agreed to sell the land to Sri Sariful Islam for an agreed consideration of ₹1,50,000 per Bigha and received ₹10,00,000 as advance.

On 29 January 2026, they applied through the Sewa Setu portal for the notified service of “Composite Land Sale Transfer” and obtained acknowledgment No. NOC/33/80024/2026.

Despite expiry of the prescribed period, the application remained pending.

The petitioners thereafter sought expeditious processing from the District Commissioner on 13 May 2026.

The Circle Officer had submitted a report dated 18 June 2026 confirming the petitioners’ recorded ownership and possession and noting the circumstances of the proposed sale.

They consequently invoked Article 226 seeking directions for disposal of their application.

1. Whether the respondent authorities could keep the petitioners’ application for a No Objection Certificate/Composite Land Sale Transfer pending beyond the statutory and notified time limits without issuing a reasoned order.

2. Whether the District Commissioner was required to either issue the NOC or pass a speaking order in accordance with Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the applicable Assam Government notifications.

3. Whether the pending application was required to be brought to finality in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 and the relevant Standard Operating Procedure.

The Court applied Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in Assam, which requires the Deputy Commissioner to issue a No Objection Certificate for the specified transfer of immovable property, or, where the NOC is not issued, to pass a speaking order recording reasons within thirty days of receipt of the application.

It also applied the Standard Operating Procedure notified on 9 September 2025 for inter-religious land transfers, under which the authorities must process the Circle Officer’s report, obtain the requisite Special Branch inputs where applicable, and issue the NOC, reject the proposal, or seek further information; an application not disposed of within thirty days must be accompanied by a speaking order.

Under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, an eligible person has the right to receive a notified service within the stipulated period, and the Designated Public Servant must either provide the service or reject the application with written reasons and appellate particulars.

The Court further relied on the notification dated 11 November 2022 declaring “Composite Land Sale Transfer” a notified public service, identifying the District Commissioner or his nominee as the Designated Public Servant and prescribing a forty-five-day service period.

The Court also recognised the requirement of reasoned decision-making as an aspect of natural justice and fair procedure, particularly where the applicant’s property rights under Article 300A are implicated.

The petitioners were eligible applicants because their names were recorded in the Jamabandi and they claimed as successors of the recorded owner.

Their application had remained pending for more than seven months, notwithstanding the thirty-day requirement under Section 21A and the SOP and the forty-five-day period under the notified public service framework.

The authorities therefore could not indefinitely retain the application without either granting the NOC or communicating a reasoned decision.

The Court did not itself determine whether the proposed transfer should be permitted; instead, it required the competent authority to complete the statutory and administrative process, including consideration of the reports and compliance with the applicable procedure.

The prolonged inaction was consequently held inconsistent with the statutory mandate of time-bound disposal and the obligation to issue a speaking order.

The Court granted no substantive declaration that the sale must be approved, leaving the authority to issue the NOC, reject the proposal, or pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law.

No order was made as to costs.