Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Ranjit Saikia And Ors Son Of Late Bhagirath Saikia - Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/1764/2025
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 - Sections 5, 7(2), 8; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 21A - Writ petition challenging rejection of application for Composite Land Sale Transfer - Rejection order was non-speaking and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice - Obligation to record reasons for rejection emphasized. (Paras 5, 24, 30)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of a speaking order - Non-recording of reasons in a statutory order is a violation of natural justice and fair procedure. (Paras 25, 29)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of land, applied for Composite Land Sale Transfer service, which was rejected without reasons by the Circle Officer.
Findings of Court:
The rejection order was set aside for failing to comply with statutory requirements of recording reasons.
Issues: Whether the rejection order was valid given the lack of reasons provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a non-speaking order is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a reasoned decision.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. The petitioners, seven in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail an Order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Circle Officer, Nagaon [the respondent no. 3]. By the Order dated 27.06.2024, the respondent no. 3 has rejected the application submitted by the petitioners on 27.03.2024 online to avail the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’.
2. The events leading to the rejection order dated 27.06.2024 can be narrated, in brief, at first.
2.1. The petitioners have stated that they are the owners and in possession of three plots of land measuring, [i] 9 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 265 & K.P. Patta no. 410; [ii] 11 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 263 & K.P. Patta no. 410; and [iii] 1 Katha, covered by Dag no. 266 & K.P. Patta no. 411, that is, 2 Kathas in total [‘hereinafter referred together to as ‘the subject-land’, for easy reference]. The subject-land is situated at Revenue Village – Town Haibor, Mouza – Sadar Town, District – Nagaon within the territorial jurisdiction of the Office of the Sub-Registrar Officer, Nagaon.
2.2. As there arose a necessity for the petitioners to the sell the subject-plot, they had entered into an agreement for sale of land with one prospective buyer on 24.08.2022 by executing a Registered Deed of Agreement for Sale of Land vide Deed no. 1696 & Sl. No. 2304 [Annexure-2].
2.3. The petitioners have further stated that they applied for a No Objection Certificate from the Nagaon Municipal Board, Nagaon on 07.07.2023 and the Nagaon Municipal Board, Nagaon had issued a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners on 28.11.2023 under Section 53A[1][i] of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, as amended.
2.4. The petitioners had thereafter, submitted applications before the respondent authorities to avail the service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ on 27.03.2024 and the receipt of those applications were acknowledged vide [i] Application Reference no. NOC/33/53466/2024; [ii] Application Reference no.NOC/33/53474/2024; and [iii] Application Reference no. NOC/33/53489/2024.
2.5. The petitioners have stated that the applications were submitted online in the comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu. The petitioners have further stated that while submitting the applications all the requisite documents were also submitted along with the applications. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the respondent authorities had thereafter, commenced enquiry for the purpose of deciding the applications to extend the service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’. While acknowledging the receipt of the applications submitted for the service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’, it was mentioned that the service would be provided within forty-five days and the petitioners could file an appeal if the service was not delivered within the said stipulated period.
3. When the petitioners tried to obtain the status of their applications in the comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu, they came to learn that the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the respondent no. 3 on 27.06.2024 and the comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu reflected as follows :- ‘The Application is Rejected by Circle Officer [Rejected as per LM Report]’.
3.1. The comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu showed the applications’
processing history as under :-
| Application processing history | ||
| Date & Time | Task details | Remarks |
| 2024-06-27 00:00:00 | Return, LM | The Application is forwarded to Circle Officer by Lat Mandal. |
| Reject, CO | The Application is rejected by Circle Officer [Rejected as per LM Report] |
| Application processing history | ||
| Date & Time | Task details | Remarks |
| 2024-06-2700:00:00 | Return, LM | The Application is forwarded to Circle Officer by Lat Mandal |
| Reject, CO | The Application is rejected by Circle Officer [Rejected as per LM Report] | |
| Application processing history | ||
| Date & Time | Task details | Remarks |
| 2024-06-27 00:00:00 | Return, LM | The Application is forwarded to Cir |
A non-speaking order in administrative decisions violates principles of natural justice and statutory obligations, necessitating a reasoned decision.
Administrative decisions must be reasoned to ensure fairness and compliance with statutory obligations, particularly under the Assam Right to Public Services Act.
The lack of recorded reasons in rejection orders violates principles of natural justice and statutory obligations, rendering such decisions arbitrary and void.
The rejection of an application for public service must be a speaking order, and failure to provide reasons violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order arbitrary.
Public authorities must provide timely services and reasons for delays or rejections under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, ensuring citizens' rights are upheld.
Public authorities are required to provide explicit reasons for rejection of applications to ensure transparency and allow rectification of deficiencies.
Public authorities must provide clear reasons for decision-making to uphold statutory compliance and transparency in administrative actions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
