Administrative authorities must act with due application of mind. Rejecting an application for land sale permission based on unjustified or non-mandatory requirements constitutes malice in law, rendering the order arbitrary and liable to be set aside under writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. N. Bordoloi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. I have also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The Petitioner herein is the owner of a plot of land admeasuring 5 Bighas 5 Kathas 4 Chataks covered by Kheraj Myadi Patta No.191, Dag No.759 at Revenue Village Bidhyanagar Cha- Bagan Part-V under Ramkrishna Nagar Revenue Circle in the District of Sribhumi, Assam. On account of need of money which arose due to urgent requirement of treatment for the Petitioner’s minor daughter who is suffering from cancer disease, the Petitioner decided to sell 1 Bigha 14 Kathas 8 Chataks of land to Billal Ahmed, Halal Uddin, Sultan Ahmed and Jabir Uddin.

3. In pursuance thereto, the Petitioner submitted an application on 16.08.2025 through online mode for composite land sale permission/NOC for selling the said 1 Bigha 14 Kathas 8 Chataks of land. However, the said application was rejected on 10.10.2025 by the Circle Officer, Ramkrishna Nagar Revenue Circle stating the ground “Excess area sold in the applied dag”. The Petitioner thereupon filed another application on 20.11.2025. The said application was also rejected on 05.12.2025 stating “Upto date land revenue receipt and co-pattadar consent not submitted”. The Petitioner thereupon submitted the third application on 24.12.2025 after rectifying the defects as mentioned in the earlier two rejected applications and this application was again rejected on 07.01.2026 on the ground of insufficient documents (pattadar failed to submit documents even after follow-up by the Circle Officer i.e. NOC from local authority not submitted). The Petitioner being aggrieved therefore had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. When the matter was taken up on 23.03.2026, this Court sought for instructions from both the Standing counsel of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department as well as the Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Commissioner and thereby fixed the matter today. However, no instruction has been placed.

5. This Court enquired with the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents as to what document is being referred to in the rejection order dated 07.01.2026. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents failed to apprise this Court as to what document is being referred to in the impugned order dated 07.01.2026.

6. This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 07.01.2026 and further that the land in question is not within any town or village. Nothing could be shown by the Respondents to the effect that permission is required from the Panchayat Authorities for the grant of sale permission.

7. This Court upon giving anxious consideration is of the opinion that the rejection of the Petitioner’s application dated 24.12.2025 vide the order dated 07.01.2026 is an apparent case of malice in law inasmuch as the said rejection has been done without proper application of mind and without following the mandate of law. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s application seeking sale permission dated 24.12.2025 requires interference.

8. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) The impugned order dated 07.01.2026 by which the Petitioner’s applica