The lack of recorded reasons in rejection orders violates principles of natural justice and statutory obligations, rendering such decisions arbitrary and void.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

1. The petitioners, nine in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by non-delivery of the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ by the respondent authorities within the stipulated time period despite submission of their applications on 03.05.2024 and 08.05.2024.

2. The events leading to the leading to the filing of the writ petition can be narrated, in brief, at first.

2.1. It is stated that the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 are the joint owners of a plot of land, covered by Dag no. 1087 and P.P. Patta no. 588, situate at Village – Karimganj Part-1 Block - 5, Mouza - Kushiarkul, Karimganj Revenue Circle, District – Karimganj [presently, Sribhumi] [‘the subject-plot’ for short]. These petitioners have stated that the the subject-plot was originally purchased by the fathers of the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6, namely, Late Jyotish Chandra Deb and Late Janmejay Deb and by their own paternal uncle, who is the petitioner no. 3. The subject-plot was originally purchased by a Sale Deed no. 1367 dated 11.02.1976 registered at the Senior Sub-Registrar’s Office, Karimganj. It is stated that after the deaths of Jyotish Chandra Deb and Janmejay Deb, the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 became joint landowners of the subject-plot by inheritance along with the petitioner no. 3. The names of the nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 were also mutated in the revenue records for the subject-plot along with the petitioner no. 3. The petitioner nos. 1 to 6 have stated that they are in possession of the subject-plot of land since 11.02.1976.

2.2. As there arose necessity for the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 to sell the subject-plot, they entered into three agreements for sale of the subject-plot with the petitioner nos. 7 to 9 after mutual discussion and at agreed considerations. It is stated that the petitioner nos. 7 to 9 in order to purchase different areas of land out of the subject-plot separately, they have paid different advance amounts out of the agreed consideration amounts.

2.3. It is stated that the petitioners had submitted three different applications before the respondent authorities to avail the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’ on 03.05.2024, 08.05.2024 and 08.05.2024 respectively. The receipt of the said application was acknowledged vide Application Reference nos. NOC/21/33695/2024, NOC/21/33783/2024 and NOC/21/33785/2024 respectively.

2.4. The petitioners have stated that the applications were submitted 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 them. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the respondent authorities had thereafter, commenced enquiry for the purpose of deciding the applications for the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’. While acknowledging the receipt of the applications submitted for the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’, it was notified that the notified public 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. As the applications were neither processed providing the notified public service nor rejected within the stipulated period of time, the petitioners had preferred the writ petition.

3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Rev