ORDER

Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Barman, learned counsel for the State respondent. Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.1.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of sale permission/NOC in respect of his land measuring 2 kathas covered by Dag No. 126 of Patta No. 250 of revenue village Ramcha Hill Grant in Ulubari Mouza, under Guwahati Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (M).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the said 2 kathas of land, which he had purchased after obtaining sale permission/NOC approximately seven years ago. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has been regularly paying land revenue, khazana, etc., and his name already stands mutated in the Jamabandi. However, when he sought sale permission in respect of the subject land, the respondent authorities arbitrarily rejected the same. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed.

4. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the case, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel, furnished a copy of the letter dated 21.03.2026, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner’s online application for sale permission in respect of the subject land was rejected by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, on the ground that a wrong application had been submitted in terms of the Lot Mandal’s report. The relevant portion of the said letter dated 21.03.2026 reads as under:

“In connection with the subject cited above and letter under reference, I have the honour to mention here that the online land sale permission application vide no. NOC/24/58524/2025 had been rejected by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle's end, by mentioning the reason for rejection as "The Application is rejected as per Lot Mondol Report, Wrong application submitted".

It is pertinent to mention here that once the application is rejected in the login of the online portal of the respective Revenue Officer(s), i.e. Circle Officer/Addl. District Commissioner/Co-District Commissioner etc., the same application cannot be re-opened for further procedure. In such cases, the applicant must apply afresh for issuance of NOC for land sale permission.

In view of the foregoing, the Hon'ble Court may direct the applicant to apply for fresh application in "SEWASETU" portal with all relevant and up-to-date documents so that the NOC may be delivered to the applicant at the earliest.

I, therefore request to the Hon'ble Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, to present the case as mentioned above on the next fixed date.

This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.”

5. It appears that the respondents, while filing their affidavit-in-opposition on 12.03.2026, have categorically stated that upon verification of the available revenue records, the subject land stands recorded in the name of the petitioner as per mutation order dated 15.03.2019. It further appears from the letter dated 21.03.2026 that the sale permission sought by the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that a wrong application had been submitted.

6. Considering the affidavit filed by the jurisdictional Circle Officer to the effect that the petitioner’s name stands recorded in the record of rights in respect of the subject land, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking sale permission/NOC in respect of the subject land through the “Sewa Setu Portal”, along with all relevant and up-to-date documents.

7. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the rejection of the petitioner’s earlier application is not on account of any substantive ineligibility or defect in titl