Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010080472025 2025:GAU-AS:11825 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2315/2025 CHABIN DAS AND ANR S/O SRI HARGOBINDA DAS, R/O HOUSE NO. 14, BYE LANE-4, SRIMANTAPUR, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781032, INDIA 2: SHARIFUL ALOM S/O MAZIBAR RAHMAN R/O BEKI ROAD WARD NO. 1 HOWLY TOWN DIST- BARPETA ASSAM-781316 INDI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA BARPETA TOWN BARPETA-781301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARPETA REVENUE CIRCLE SUNDARIDIA BARPETA-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR K KASHYAB,MR. L M RAHMAN,MR. B BORAH Page No.# 2/11 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 26/08/2025 Heard Mr. I H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. M Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present proceeding have presented a challenge to an order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Circle Officer, Barpeta Revenue Circle, Barpeta, in the “SEWA SETU” portal, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for “Composite Land Sale Transfer”. 3. The petitioners project that the petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 146, under Patta No. 102 situated at Howly Town, Barpeta Revenue Circle, Barpeta. The petitioner No. 1, herein, had agreed to sell the said plot of land to the petitioner No. 2. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred a joint application on 06.02.2025 for issuance of necessary “No Objection Certificate” for transfer of ownership of the plot of land in question. 4. The petitioners contend that the said application was so made in the Government portal “SEWA SETU” and the requisite fee for the same was also paid. The petitioners further contend that the application dated 06.02.2025, was submitted strictly in accordance with the procedure mandated. 5. The materials brought on record further reveal that the application submitted by the petitioners was processed by the respondent authorities and the jurisdictional Lot Mandal had submitted his report in the matter. The application was forwarded to the jurisdictional Circle Officer, who on perusal of the reports available in the matter proceeded to reject the same on 10.02.2025. The rejection was stated to have been so made basing on the jurisdictional Lot Mandal’s report. The petitioners on perusal of the portal had come to learn about the rejection of their application on 11.03.2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceedings. Page No.# 3/11 7. Mr. I H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the rejection of the application, submitted in the matter by the petitioners, was so done without any reference to them. Mr. Saikia, further submits that in the event, the respondent authorities had come to a conclusion that the documents submitted by the petitioners were insufficient and/or there existed any inconsistency with regard to any information furnished by the petitioners, before rejecting their applications on the said ground, the petitioners were required to be informed about the same, giving them an opportunity to meet up the lacuna existing, if any. 8. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the portal, no reason has been assigned for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioners, herein, and it has been only noted as ‘Rejected’. Accordingly, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners, by affording an opportunity to them to furnish the deficient documents. 9. Ms. M Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam submits that the application submitted by the petitioners was rejected on account of the fact that there was a mismatch with regard to particulars as set out in the application so submitted in the matter, as well as the documents accompanying the same. She submits that there is no provision made for disclosure of reasons, for rejection of the application and the application not having been submitted by complying with the procedure prescribed in the matter, the same did not mandate further consideration and accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioners came to be rejected. 10. Ms. M Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam further submits that the application, on being rejected, the portal does not permit its reversion to the authority, who had put up the note and whose note was relied in this connection and after rejection of such application, a fresh process of hearing cannot be granted, inasmuch as, the processing of such applications is always done in a time bound manner. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioners herein had submitted an application in the Government portal “Sewa Setu” seeking a “No Objection Certificate” for transfer of the land of the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2. The said portal was created under the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (as amended) and Section 21A of the Page No.# 4/11 Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009. 13. The Assam Right to Public Services [ARPTS] Act, 2012 has been enacted by the Assam Legislative Assembly in order to provide for delivery of notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The ARTPS Act received the assent of the Governor of Assam on 27.04.2012 and was notified by a notification dated 02.05.2012. The ARTPS Act has been published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 02.05.2012. 14. As per Section 2[h], ‘Right to Public Service’ means right to obtain the notified service under the ARTPS Act from time to time within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under Section 5. Section 5 of the ARTPS Act has laid down that every eligible person shall have the right to obtain the services in accordance with the ARTPS Act within the time bound period as notified under Section 4. It is the liability of the Designated Government Servant to deliver services, under Section 6 of the ARTPS Act, within the stipulated period. The stipulated time limit, as per Section 7[1], starts from the date when the application for obtaining a required notified service is submitted to the Designated Public Servant or to a person subordinate to him authorized to receive the application. It is further mentioned that such application shall be duly acknowledged. 15. As per Section 7[2], the Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application under sub- section [1] shall, within the stipulated time limit, provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of application, he shall record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application, [i] the reasons for such rejection; [ii] the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and [iii] the particulars of the Appellate Authority. 16. Section 8 of the ARTPS Act has provided for an appeal before the Appellate Authority and also for a review before the Reviewing Authority. As per subsection [1] of Section 8 any person, whose application is rejected under subsection [2] of section 7 or who has not been provided the notified service within the stipulated time limit, may file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of rejection of application or the expiry of the stipulated time limit. 17. The first proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 8 has provided that the Appellate Authority may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days but in no case beyond sixty days or the expiry of the stipulated time limit for delivery of that particular notified service, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The second proviso to Page No.# 5/11 sub-section [1] of Section 8 has provided further that in case of rejection of an application for a notified service for which any other law for the time being in force prescribes remedy, the applicant shall follow the process under such law for the time being in force. 18. It may also be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Registration Act. 19. Entry 6 of List III [Concurrent List] of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India has provided for 'Registration of Deeds and Documents'. The Registration Act, 1908 is a Central Act and the States are empowered, because of Entry 6 of List III, to make amendments in the Registration Act, 1908. A nos. of States have made a nos. of amendments in the Registration Act, 1908. The State of Assam has also made a number of amendments in the Registration Act, 1908. 20. The Registration Act, 1908 has been amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, in its application to the State of Assam by insertion of a new 'Section 21A', which reads as under :- 21A. No registration of non-testamentary instruments without no objection certificate. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, no non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration, unless the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district issues a No Objection Certificate containing the description of such immovable property to be transferred and also such other No Objection Certificates, which are required to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Authority under any law for the time being in force or under any Executive Instruction, Order etc. issued by the State Government from time to time: Provided that all such No Objection Certificates shall be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of application and in case No Objection Certificate is not issued within the stipulated period of thirty days, a speaking order with reasons thereof shall be issued to the applicant within the said stipulated period. 21. The main enacting part of Section 21A, quoted above, is with a non-obstante clause. It has Page No.# 6/11 provided that no non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration unless the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district issues a “No Objection Certificate” containing the description of such immovable property to be transferred and also such “No Objection Certificates”, which are required to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Authority under any law for the time being in force or under any Executive Instruction, Order, etc. issued by the State Government from time to time. 22. In the proviso to Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, it is provided that all such “No Objection Certificates” shall be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application and in case “No Objection Certificate” is not issued within the stipulated period of thirty days, a speaking order with reasons thereof shall be issued to the applicant within the said stipulated period. 23. The provisions of Section 7[2] of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended, and the proviso to Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, have cast obligation on the Designated Public Servant to record the reasons in the event it decides to reject an application for a notified public service. 24. In the case in hand, the application submitted by the petitioners for the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ has been rejected by the respondent no. 3 purportedly citing the following reason : ‘The Application is Rejected by Circle Officer [Rejected as per LM Report]’. 25. The Notification dated 11.11.2022 is on the subject :- ‘Declaration of Service under Revenue & DM Department as per provision of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 in all Districts [except sixth scheduled Districts] of Assam. The notification has been issued with a view to provide delivery of public service to eligible citizens within the stipulated time limit and others as under :- “Subject: Declaration of Service under Revenue & DM Department as per provision of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 in all Districts [except sixth scheduled Districts] of Assam With a view to provide the delivery to Public Service to eligible citizens within stipulated time limit, Revenue & DM Department in continuation of earlier Notification No. RSS.203/2022/1 dated 6th May 2022 has notified the below service under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. Page No.# 7/11 Service Name : Composite Land Service Transfer An important service provided by the Deputy Commissioner regarding Land Sale permission is ‘NoC for Transfer of Immovable Property’ under section 21[A] of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. However once NoC is issued by the O/o the Deputy Commissioner, applicant has to apply for Registration of the Scheduled land in Sub Registrar Office following separate applications for Mutation, Partition, Jamabandi etc. in the concerned Circle Office. ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ intends for issuing No Objection Certificate for the Transfer of Immovable property at O/o Deputy Commissioner followed by Registration of Property at the Sub Registrar Office followed by auto mutation and auto Composite Land Sale Transfer Service with ‘Auto Mutation’ or ‘Auto Mutation along with Partition’ at the time of submitting the Application form. Eligibility criteria : Anyone in whose name figures in Jamabandi/Record of Rights or his/her legal heir/successor or his/her registered power of attorney holder is eligible to avail the service online. Designated Public Servant [DPS]: Deputy Commissioner/to the nominated by Deputy Commissioner.” 26. The Notification has further provided for procedural steps to be followed by the authorities involved in providing the notified public services. The notification has further mentioned about the user charges. As per the Citizen Charter annexed to the Notification as Annexure-I, for the notified public service ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’, the Deputy Commissioner or the authority to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner is the Designated Public Servant and the stipulated time limit for providing the service is mentioned as forty-five days. In the Citizen Charter, the Commissioner of Divisions has been mentioned as the appellate authority. 27. It is submitted by the respondents that the office of the Commissioner of Divisions has been abolished in the meantime and presently, by another notification dated 16.11.2023, the Revenue & Disaster Management Department has been made the appellate authority. Page No.# 8/11 28. On perusal of the impugned order of rejection, it is evidently clear that the impugned order is not in conformity with Section 7[2] of the ARTPS Act and Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009. 29. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on examining similar issue, as arising in the present proceeding, in the case of Simanta Mudoi and 2 Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and 3 Ors. (judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 in WP(C) No. 1710/2025) had concluded as follows:- “25. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, more particularly, when the authority is statutory authority then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The authority exercising the statutory power must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is not expressly or impliedly dispensed with. It is implicit in the principles of natural justice or fair play that an authority which has been vested with the power to decide the matter should record reasons as it is part of fair procedure, more particularly, when the decision is likely to affect the person concerned. In the case in hand, the right of the applicant is also traceable to Article 300A of the Constitution. Though the right provided in Article 300A is not fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional and human right. Recording of reasons is also prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind on the part of the authority. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the statutory power to take a decision which is likely to affect the right of the person concerned. When the statute itself contains a prescription to record reasons in the decision, absence of reasons in the decision falls short of prescription and would be in violation of the prescription and thus, illegal. 26. It has been canvassed on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition in order to invoke the extra ordinary remedy instead of availing an alternative statutory remedy which is adequate and efficacious. It is settled law that even in presence of an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal, a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on the ground:- [i] where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; or [ii] where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or [iii] where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or [iv] where the vires of an Act is challenged. In Page No.# 9/11 these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. 27. The recording of reasons in the order passed by the Designated Public Servant who deals with the matter at the first stage, is necessary. The responsibility to record reasons is higher when the order to be passed by the original authority at the first stage by the Designated Public Servant is an appealable order. An order which affects the right of a citizen or a person, requires recording of reasons as the reasons recorded would aid the appellate authority to see whether the original authority concerned has acted fairly and reasonably to the aggrieved person. The recording of reasons in the order, more particularly, when the adverse order has the possibility of impacting a citizen or a person adversely is necessary as then only the person aggrieved can have the knowledge of the reasons as to why the order has been passed and he can have a proper opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate authority that the reasons which impelled the Designated Public Servant to pass the adverse order against him, are erroneous, arbitrary, untenable or unjust. 28. In the case in hand, the Designated Public Servant has only mentioned that the application has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of sufficient documents without mentioning anything about the documents, which were not submitted with the application to enable the petitioner to meet the deficiencies, if there is any, and to submit a fresh application or to prefer an appeal. 29. In the case in hand, the petitioners have alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. The Designated Public Servant while deciding their applications for the notified public service, by not passing a reasoned and speaking order has violated the principles of natural justice. 30. In view of the above fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that when the incident of vulnerability of the order of rejection on the touchstone of not meeting the statutory prescription of recording reasons and violation of principles of natural justice is considered against the point canvassed by the official respondents regarding non-filing of appeal it is the vulnerability of the order of rejection of the application which would far outweigh the other reason regarding the petitioners not approaching the appellate forum. 31. In the above obtaining fact situation, the Court finds it apposite to refer to the following observations made in the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Page No.# 10/11 Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 1 SCC 405 :- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji : Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 30. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Simanta Mudoi (Supra) and is in respectful agreement with the same. 31. Applying the conclusions drawn by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Simanta Mudoi (Supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the impugned order of rejection dated 10.02.2025 to be not a speaking order and as such, the said order dated 10.02.2025 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order of rejection dated 10.02.2025 is set aside. 32. The impugned order of rejection dated 10.02.2025 having been set aside, the Designated Public Servant is now required to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for the notifying public service, “Composite Land Sale Transfer” strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended, the proviso to Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 and the Notification dated 11.11.2022 along with any other binding decision of the Government in this connection and thereafter, to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of submission of a copy of this order by the petitioners before the Designated Page No.# 11/11 Public Servant. 33. This Court further provides liberty to the petitioners to place before the Designated Public Servant along with a certified copy of this order, requisite documents, which the petitioners would like to rely for the purpose of being granted the “Composite Land Sale Transfer”. In the event any further document is so submitted, the Designated Public Servant shall also take into consideration the same and shall pass the speaking order, as directed, hereinabove. 34. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant