IMPORTANT POINT
Public authorities must provide clear reasons for decisions; non-speaking orders violate statutory requirements.

ORDER :

(MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.)

Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. In view of the limited nature of issue involved and as the learned counsel for the respondents have received the necessary instructions, this writ petition is taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for all the parties.

3. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 5 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 3 & Khiraj Patta no. 55, Class – Salitoli, situate at Village – Kurshakati, Mouza – Chapar, Chapar Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. As the owner of the subject-plot, the petitioner had entered into a notarised agreement for sale of the subject-plot with a proposed purchaser viz. Saifur Rahman on 24.06.2024. The petitioner has submitted that in order to sell the subject-plot, the petitioner made a declaration in the form of an affidavit and thereafter, had applied for Sale Permission/No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the District Commissioner, Dhubri on 29.06.2024 in the prescribed form along with all the supporting documents like trace map, chitha copy, land holding certificate, voter lists, agreement for sale of land, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, etc. After submission of the application on 29.06.2024, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos. 3 had processed the application and by an order dated 13.08.2024, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the petitioner for sale permission/NOC on the ground, ‘insufficient document’.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted all the supporting documents in support of his application for sale permission/NOC. Despite submission of all the supporting documents, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the applicants by a cryptic order citing ‘insufficient document’. He has contended that as an applicant-citizen, the petitioner has the right to know the reason as to why the petitioner’s application for Sale Permission/NOC had been rejected.

5. 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.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to a Notification bearing no. E-457453 of the Revenue [Registration] & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam dated 07.03.2024, has submitted that the said Notification had currency for a period of three months and after expiry of th