Section 21A Registration Act | Land Transfer NOC Must Be Issued Or Rejected By Speaking Order Within 30 Days: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 imposes a statutory mandate upon the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to either issue a No Objection Certificate for the transfer of immovable property or pass a speaking order rejecting it with reasons, within thirty days of receiving the application.Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, held, “It...
The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 imposes a statutory mandate upon the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to either issue a No Objection Certificate for the transfer of immovable property or pass a speaking order rejecting it with reasons, within thirty days of receiving the application.
Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, held, “It is a statutory mandate under Section 21A of the Registration Act for the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to either issue a No Objection Certificate [NOC] containing the description of the immovable property to be transferred or to pass a speaking order with reasons thereof within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application in case NOC is not issued within the prescribed period of thirty days.”
As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioners had applied for an NOC under Section 21A for the transfer of a plot of land. According to them, the official survey operation concerning the area had not been completed and the facility for submitting the application online was, therefore, unavailable. They consequently submitted the application through offline mode before the competent authority.
The State authorities accepted before the Court that, in view of the non-availability of the online facility for the area concerned, the NOC application was required to be submitted through offline mode. They further submitted that the application was required to be processed in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure.
The first and second petitioners were the owners of a parcel of land situated at Mouza Rajabari in Sribhumi district. They had entered into an agreement with the third petitioner for the sale of a part of the land measuring eight kathas for an agreed consideration of ₹42 lakh. The NOC application was submitted thereafter.
The petitioners approached the High Court after the application was not processed to its finality despite the passage of more than five months. They sought a direction to the authorities, particularly the District Commissioner, to bring the process of issuing the NOC to its conclusion at the earliest.
The Court referred to Section 21A of the Registration Act, as inserted and subsequently amended by the Assam Amendment Acts. The provision states that a non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property covered by the provision cannot be accepted for registration unless the Deputy Commissioner issues an NOC containing the description of the property to be transferred.
The proviso to Section 21A further requires that the NOC be issued within thirty days from the date on which the application is received. Where the NOC is not issued within that period, a speaking order containing reasons must be issued to the applicant within the same stipulated period.
The Court also examined the SOP notified by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department for granting NOCs under Section 21A in cases where the buyers and sellers belong to different religious communities.
Under the SOP, the District Commissioner is required to obtain a report from the Circle Officer concerning the veracity of the particulars submitted by the applicant. The application is thereafter forwarded to the Nodal Officer for inter-religion land sale permission, who is required to obtain a report from the Special Branch of the Assam Police.
The Special Branch report is required to examine whether the transfer may be the result of undue threat, coercion or fraudulent means; whether it has the propensity to disturb peace and communal harmony in the area; whether it could pose a threat to national security; and the character and antecedents of the buyer and seller.
After receiving the Special Branch report, the District Commissioner may seek further information from the applicants, reject the proposal or issue the NOC. The SOP also requires the District Commissioner to issue a speaking order with reasons where the application is not disposed of within thirty days.
The Court observed, “Under Section 21A of the Registration Act, as amended, as well as in the SOP notified vide Notification dated 09.09.2025 by the State Government, the time period of thirty days from the date of application for processing of the application has been prescribed.”
The Court noted that it was an admitted position that the petitioners' application had not reached its finality despite the passage of more than five months.
In view of the statutory prescription under Section 21A and the SOP, the Court directed the authorities, particularly the District Commissioner, to conclude the entire process in strict compliance with the statutory prescription as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of thirty days from the date on which the petitioners submit a certified copy of the order.
The Court directed, “Therefore, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, this writ petition, in view of the statutory prescription contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act and the SOP notified by the Notification dated 09.09.2025, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 2 to bring the entire process to its conclusion in strict compliance of the statutory prescription as expeditiously as possible, but within an outer limit of thirty days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. 2 by the petitioners.”
The Court further directed that if any additional document was required for processing the application, the District Commissioner must inform the petitioners in writing about the deficiency within fifteen days of receiving a copy of the order. In such a situation, the period of thirty days would be calculated from the date on which the petitioners cured the deficiencies.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Name: Kartik Rabidas and 2 Others v. State of Assam and 4 Others
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 103
Case No.: WP(C) No. 3735 of 2026