Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010123562025 2026:GAU-AS:5916 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3215/2025 SANDHYA CHOREI W/O JOYTINGIR CHOREI, R/O A VILL- RAILWAY COLONY, KARIMGANJ, P.S.- KARIMGANJ AND DIST- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788710 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788710 3:THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SRIBHUMI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788712 5:THE SUB REGISTRAR SRIBHUMI Page No.# 2/6 P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. R. Mahanta, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner has executed a Sale Agreement with a buyer and applied for Composite Land Transfer vide Acknowledgement No. NOC/21/32280/2024, dated 09.02.2024. It is contended that, till the filing of the instant writ petition, the said application had not been disposed of by the respondent authorities, although the stipulated period of 45 days for such disposal had already elapsed. It is the further contended that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and was informed that, due to differences in the religious identities of the seller and the buyer, her application has not been disposed of till that time. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 3. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, wherein she brought on record a digital report from Sewa Page No.# 3/6 Setu, a portal for submission of such applications. From the report, it transpires that the petitioner’s application was rejected by the respondent authorities on 27.06.2025, stating that, as per the report submitted by the LRA, the NOC could not be approved. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 2, i.e., the District Commissioner, Shribhumi District, Shribhumi, wherein a stand has been taken that, as per the report submitted by the LR Staff, there is a mismatch in the documents attached with NOC/21/32280/2024, to the effect that the purchaser’s name, Raju Roy, as mentioned in the affidavit, did not match with the buyer and seller and that the land revenue receipt submitted was not up to date. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the said NOC was rejected. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the stipulated time for the service to be delivered in the instant case is 45 days, however, in spite of the lapse of the aforesaid 45 days, the services as prayed for have not been delivered to the petitioner. He further submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for Composite Land Transfer was carried out by the respondent authorities in violation of the stipulated time and no reasons for such rejection were mentioned in the said rejection order. Therefore, he submits that such rejection, without assigning any reasons, amounts to a violation of the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2012”). Accordingly, he submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the application so filed by the petitioner afresh. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, submits that since the rejection Page No.# 4/6 has already been made by the respondent authorities, in the event of any grievance, the petitioner may seek for redressal of the same by filing an appeal under Section 8 of the Act of 2012. He submits that since the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy available and as there are certain discrepancies in the documents involving factual issues, the instant writ petition may not be entertained. He further submits that the matter may be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal under the aforesaid provision, i.e., Section 8 of the Act of 2012. 7. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to extract hereinbelow the relevant provisions of the Act of 2012: "4(3). Public Authority shall also notify an officer superior in rank than that of the Designated Public Servant to act as Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal filed by an eligible person against rejection of his application or delay in providing notified Public Services within the stipulated time limit. 8. (1) Any person who, does not get notified service within the stipulated time limit specified under Section 4 or is aggrieved by a decision of the Designated Public Servant, may, within 30 days from the expiry of the stipulated period or from the date of receipt of such decision, as the case may be, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority notified under sub-section (3) of section 4: Provided that the Appellate Authority may admit the appeal after the expiry of 30 days if he or she is satisfied that the Appellant was prevent by sufficient cause from filing the Page No.# 5/6 appeal in time. (2) The Appellate Authority may order the Designated Public Servant to provide the notified service within the stipulated time limit as specified in the notification under section 4 for that service or may reject the appeal and in case of rejection of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall record the reasons in writing for rejection of the appeal in his order: Provided that, before deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant as well as the Designated Public Servant. (3) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of filing of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, for reasons to be recorded in writing, as the case may be." 8. What is discernible from the aforesaid provisions is that, in the event of rejection of an application or delay in providing notified public services within the stipulated time limit, the person aggrieved has the right to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act of 2012. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that though there was a considerable delay in the rejection of the petitioner’s application, the petitioner waited for a long time instead of approaching the appellate authority in terms of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act of 2012. 10. Be that as it may, since the application of the petitioner has already been rejected on 27.06.2025 and the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 8 of the Act of 2012, i.e., 30 days, has already expired, the petitioner Page No.# 6/6 has lost the opportunity to file an appeal under the aforesaid Act of 2012. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner’s application was filed on 09.02.2024 and was rejected only on 25.06.2025, much beyond the stipulated time period, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act of 2012, though the time limit of 30 days has already expired. 11. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall, if so advised, file an appeal before the appellate authority in terms of Section 4(3) read with Section 8 of the aforesaid Act of 2012 by submitting the necessary documents and clarifying the discrepancies as mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities in the instant case. 12. In the event of filing of such an appeal, the same shall be disposed of by the respondent authorities within the time limit prescribed under the aforesaid Act of 2012. 13. However, it is made clear that the instant order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. 14. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant