SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12885

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MONIKA PATOWARY BARMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAMA AND 5 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) 3458 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010131282025

2026:GAU-AS:6838

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/3458/2025

MONIKA PATOWARY BARMAN

WIFE OF SADANANDA BARMAN, VILLAGE NO. 1 , GHORATHAL, MUGDI,

P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781312.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAMA AND 5 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND

DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-781006.

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

NALBARI

DISTRICT- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781335

3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REV)

NALBARI

DISTRICT- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN- 781335.

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

MUKALMUA REVENUE CIRCLE

DISTRICT- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781126.

5:THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR

##PAGE2##

Page No.# 2/7

NALBARI

DISTRICT- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN- 781335.

6:THE SUB- REGISTRAR

MUKALMUA

DISTRICT- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN- 781335

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, R KHA,MS. P AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Date : 15.05.2026

Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee,

learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H.K.

Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 2-5.

2. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner

is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas, 1 Katha, 2 Lessas, covered by

Dag no. 430 & Patta no. 180, situate at Village no. 1 Ghorathal, Mouza – Paschim Barkhetri,

Police Station – Mukalmua, District – Nalbari, Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. As the

petitioner had intended to purchase another plot of land for her convenience and for the said

purpose she was in need of money, the petitioner had offered to sell the subject-plot and two

proposed purchasers accepted the offer. An agreement for sale of land was executed to that

effect on 01.10.2023.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 23.01.2024 in the designated portal

seeking the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’/No Objection Certificate

[NOC]. The application was received vide Acknowledgement no. NOC/06/44972/2024.

##PAGE3##

Page No.# 3/7

Substantially, the application for NOC was shown rejected on 08.03.2024 in the designated

portal, Sewa Setu. Aggrieved by such rejection of the application, the petitioner approached

this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6329/2024 wherein it was highlighted that in view of

the provisions contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act, as amended by the

Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, either the NOC is to be issued or a Speaking

Order is to be passed within the stipulated period.

4. The writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6329/2024 was disposed of by an Order dated

20.12.2024. In the Order dated 20.12.2024, it was observed that since the petitioner had

already filed an application before the District Commissioner, Nalbari seeking NOC and the

same was duly received, it would be apposite for the District Commissioner, Nalbari to

consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a Speaking Order as required under Section

21A of the Registration Act, as amended. The writ petition was thereby, disposed of with a

direction to pass the Speaking Order within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of

a certified copy of the Order.

5. Thereafter, the impugned Order came to be passed by the respondent no. 2 on

11.04.2025 disposing of the matter. In the Order, it was observed that the petitioner had

mistakenly claimed that her application was rejected by the Authority without any reason.

The said observation was made for the reason that upon reviewing the tracking status of the

application in the Sewa Setu Portal, it was found that the application was rejected by the

Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of non-recommendation by the concerned Circle

Officer for issuance of the NOC. Aggrieved by the impugned Order so passed, the petitioner is

before this Court by the instant wr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top