WP(C) 733/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr. PKR Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A lso heard Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State counsel. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called into question the legal ity of the order dated 07.08.2010 issued by the respondent No.2, placing him und er suspension on the ground that he has violated Section 21A of the Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 by not registering the land sale deeds on the basis of No Objection Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Rangia . The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the judgment dated 01.10.2007 passed by this Court in PIL No.13/2007, the State resp ondents amended the Registration Act being the Registration (Assam Amendment) Ac t, 2009 incorporating the new section 21A whereby it has been made mandatory to obtain the No Objection Certificate by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District or any other authority for the time being in force for the purpose of t ransfer of immovable property. The case of the petitioner is that till now no no tification has been issued by the State respondents empowering any other authori ty to issue No Objection Certificate. The respondent No.3, however, issued wirel ess message to all concerned directing to require submission of land sale petiti on after proper verification for the purpose of issue of No Objection Certificat e. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), who is respondent No.5 herein, started to issue No Objection Certificate for transfer of immovable property. According to the petitioner, as the respondent No.5 is not the competent authority to issue the No Objection Certificate, he refused to register the deeds on the basis of t he No Objection Certificate issued by him. This apparently infuriated the respon dent No.5, who threatened him with dire consequences. Being influenced and insti gated by the respondent No.5, in retaliation, the respondent No.2 issued the imp ugned order on the ground of alleged violation of Section 21A of the Registratio n (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner a pproached this Court in WP(C) No.4494/2010. This Court vide order dated 10.11.20 10 had directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation of t he petitioner against the impugned order within three weeks. The respondent No.2 , however, by the second impugned order dated 20.12.2010 rejected the representa tion of the petitioner and continued the impugned suspension order. This is how the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 and th e respondent No.3 have separately filed their affidavit-in-opposition, but their contentions are virtually one and the same. According to them, the respondent N o.5 has been empowered to issue No Objection Certificate for transfer of immovab le property like the Deputy Commissioner. In support of this contention, they re lied on the instruction contained in the letter dated 22.02.2010 issued by the G overnment of Assam and the executive instruction dated 08.03.2000. In the light of the conflicting stands taken by the rival parties, it becomes clear that the sole question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Sub-D ivisional Officer (C) in Assam is empowered by law to issue No Objection Certifi cate for transfer of immovable property. In Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Assam and Ot hers (PIL No.13/2007), the Division Bench of this Court have considered the ques tion as to whether production of No Objection Certificate from the Deputy Commis sioner, Sub-Divisional Officers and the Development Authorities under the Town a nd Country Planning Act, can be insisted by the Registering Authority for regist ration of documents such a sale deed, which are required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The material portions of the judgment are fou nd at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, which read as thus: 10. From above, it is apparent that the State Government is also aware t hat the impugned requirement is not supported by the Registration Act and the Go vernment is presently contemplating amendment exercise in the Registration Act, to ensure statutory support for the already enforced requirement. Therefore, it is obvious that as on date, the said statutory support is not available. 11. Under such circumstances, we hold that such insistence on obtaining of No Objection Certificate prior to registration of sale deeds is not legally s ustainable. Accordingly, it is declared that the Registering Authorities under t he Registration Act cannot be compelled to insist on No Objection Certificates p rior to registration of sale deeds since such insistence is contrary to the prov isions of the Registration Act. Once a particular deed fulfils the requirement o f the provisions of the Registration Act, further impediment cannot be imposed o n registration of such deeds though executive fiat by insistence on No Objection Certificates. 12. In view of above, this petition stands allowed and the respondent au thorities are directed to act strictly in terms of the provisions of the Registr ation Act with regard to registration of deeds and documents. No registration is to be refused for documents which fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act by further insisting on No Objection Certificates, without necessary amendme nt of the law to lend legal support for such additional requirement. No costs. Apparently taking a cue from this judgment, the State respondents in 200 9 enacted the Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 amending the Registration Act, 1908. In terms of this amendment, Section 21A has been inserted which are in the following terms: 21A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this A ct, no non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property shall be accep ted for registration, unless the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district i ssues a No Objection Certificate containing the description of such immovable pr operty to be transferred and also such other No Objection Certificates, which ar e required to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Authority under any law for the time being in force or under any Executive Instruction, Order et c., issued by the State Government from time to time; Provided that all such No Objection Certificates shall be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of application and in case No Objection Certificate is not issued within the stipulated period of thirty da ys, a speaking order with reasons thereof shall be issued to the applicant withi n the said stipulated period. This newly added Section prohibits acceptance of non-testamentary instru ment relating to immovable property for registration, unless No Objection Certif icate is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district or any othe r authority under any law for the time being in force or under any executive ins truction(s)/order etc., issued by the State Government from time to time. This p rovision shows that it is the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority empower ed by any law for the time being in force or under any executive instruction/ord er etc., issued by the Government from time to time, who can issue the No Object ion Certificate. As on 07.08.2010 when the impugned order was passed, there was no executive instruction empowering the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue the No O bjection Certificate. The executive instruction dated 12.09.2002 upon which heav y reliance has been made by the State respondents has been declared illegal vide paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 01.10.2007 in Abdul Aziz (supra). Therefore, unless a new instruction is issued by the State respondents empowering the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) to issue the No Objection Certificate, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the impug ned order was issued, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) had no power to issue t he No Objection Certificate. Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) has been f ound to be incompetent to issue No Objection Certificate: the question of violat ing Section 21A of the Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 does not and can not arise. Consequently, the foundation of the case of the State respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension is found to be non-existent. In this vie w of the matter, the suspension order is unwarranted and untenable in law. Resul tantly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.08.2010 and 20.12.2010 are hereby quashed. The State respondents are accordingly directed to reinstate the petitioner to his post with consequential benefits, within a peri od of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. No cost.