2026:GAU-AS:10530 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3799/2026 SRI DILIP KUMAR NATH SON OF LATE NISHI KANTA NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UDMARI PT III, P.S. BILASIPARA, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN- 783348 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM 783301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM 783348 4:THE SUB REGISTRAR BILASIPARADISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S ROY, MS DHRITI HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT GAHC010149622026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Battacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. Let notice be issued. Having regard to the issue raised in this writ petition regarding rejection of an application filed by the petitioner seeking delivery of a notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’, the notice is made returnable forthwith, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the submissions made, in unison, the writ petition is also taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 5 Bighas 6 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 597 & Patta no. 2, situate at Village – Udmari Part-IV, Bilasipara Revenue Circle, District - Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. 4. The petitioner has canvassed that he has been suffering from heart related problems and is under regular medical treatment. Due to his deteriorating condition, he is in need of a substantial amount to meet the expenditure for his medical treatment. As the petitioner requires a substantial amount to meet the medical treatment expenditure, he intended to sell a part of the subject-plot measuring 2 Bighas out of the subject-plot and accordingly, after arriving at an agreement to sell that part of two Bighas to a proposed purchaser, the petitioner submitted an application in the designated portal, ‘Sewa Setu’ seeking delivery of the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ on 03.02.2026. On receipt of the said application, acknowledgment was generated vide Acknowledgement no. NOC/02/58660/2026. As per the application acknowledgement, if the application was accepted by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, the service would not be provided within forty-five days [excluding the time taken between issue of NoC and presentation of Sale Deed before Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar Office]. It was further mentioned that the applicant could raise an appeal if the service was not delivered within a period of forty-five days. 5. When despite receipt of the application on 03.02.2026 and repeated approaches by the petitioner, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Designated Public Servant did not made delivery of the notified public service within the prescribed period, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1385/2026 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the application in accordance with law. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1385/2026, the petitioner came to learn that his application for notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ had been rejected. On 15.07.2026, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1385/2026 in order to challenge the Order of Rejection. Hence, the writ petition challenging the Rejection Order. 6. It is the stated by the petitioner that his application came to be rejected by the respondent no. 3 on 17.03.2026. When the petitioner checked the status of his application in the Sewa Setu portal, the petitioner came to learn that the respondent no. 3 has assigned the following as the reason for rejection :- The Application is rejected by Circle Officer. [Land under dispute. (Geotagged photo not submit and possession dispute as AS PER LRA REPORT REJECTED)] 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the provision of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, the Designated Public Servant is obligated either to extend the notified public service or to reject the application made for notified public service with reasons, within the time period prescribed in the statute. The petitioner has contended that the application has been rejected by a non- speaking order and therefore, the Order of Rejection is unsustainable. 8. 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. 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 responsibility [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. 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. Page 5 of 9 9. 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. 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. 10. The Notification has further provided for the procedural steps to be followed by the authorities involved in providing the notified public services. 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. 11. It is a statutory prescription for the Designated Public Servant under Section 7[2] of the ARTPS Act to record the reasons in writing in case of rejection of application. A Reasoned Order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a Reasoned 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 and 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 order is an appealable order, recording of reasons assumes significance as the reasons would come under examination of the appellate authority. Without a reasoned order, the appellant also finds himself handicapped to challenge the order when the reasons are not disclosed in the order itself. 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. From such standpoint, the impugned Rejection Order is found to be not a reasoned order. 12. When the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act on 27.04.2026 seeking certain information, the respondent no. 3 in his Reply dated 27.05.2026, has inter alia mentioned that during the field visit, the concerned Land Record Assistant [LRA] of Bilasipara Revenue Circle received a complaint from the villagers. The respondent no. 3, in his Reply, has also expressed inability to provide certified copies of the Rejection Order, online rejection notes, etc., stating that those documents were not available as it was fully operated by the Integrated Land Records Management System [ILRMS] as the reason. The petitioner has further mentioned that the certified copy of the Report of LRA was also not available as hard copy in the Office as those reports are generated and maintained in electronic format in ILRMS portal. A number of other reasons have been cited by the respondent no. 3 in his Reply dated 27.05.2026 and the same are not repeated in this order. 13. From the Order of Rejection dated 17.03.2026, it is evident that the application has been rejected by the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 without disclosing about the details of any existing dispute concerning the subject-plot or the part of 2 Bighas of land which the petitioner has proposed to transfer by way of sale, has rejected the application on the said ground. The respondent no. 3 has also cited a dispute as regards possession of the subject-plot as the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application apart from non-submission of geotagged photographs. From perusal of the reasons cited by the respondent no. 3, which is of cryptic nature, it transpires that the rejection has been made as per the Report of the Land Records Assistant [LRA]. 14. If any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, and if the decision is found to have taken without any independent appreciation on the part of the statutory authority, the order becomes patently vulnerable. The impugned Rejection Order is found to have fallen in such category of order. 15. Thus, from the above two stand-points, the Rejection Order dated 17.03.2026 which requires to be a reasoned order and to be passed after independent application of mind by the statutory authority, cannot stand the scrutiny of law and it is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. 16. This Court cannot be oblivious of the contention made by the petitioner that he is in need of fund to meet the expenditure for his medical treatment and in support of such contention, the petitioner has annexed a set of legal documents wherefrom it prima facie appears that the petitioner, who is aged about 58 years, is a heart patient. Therefore, the petitioner’s urgent need of fund for meeting his expenditure for medical treatment cannot be lost sight of. 17. With the setting aside and quashing of the Rejection Order dated 17.03.2026, the Designated Public Servant shall now proceed for consideration of the application of the petitioner dated 27.04.2026 for the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ afresh strictly in terms of the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, and the Notification dated 11.11.2022 for processing the application to its finality, that is, either by extending the notified public service or, in case the application is found deficient for any reason, to pass a reasoned order in that connection. Therefore, it is directed that the Designated Public Servant shall bring the processing of the application to its finality within a period of thirty days from receipt of a certified copy of this Order from the petitioner at his office. If during the processing of the application, any further document is found necessary from the petitioner, then the designated public servant is to inform the petitioner in writing as regards deficiency, if any, in his application within a period of fifteen days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this Order at his office. In such situation, the time period of thirty days is to be calculated from the date of meeting the deficiencies by the petitioner. 18. With the observations made and the direction given, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.07.31 10:42:59 +05'30'