JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. 2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has projected that the petitioner has come into possession of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 325 & Annual [Eksonia] Patta no. 76, situate at Village - Borpatra Dole Kalu Gaon, Mouza – Hologuri, District - Sivasagar ['the subject-plot no. 1', for short], after executing a notarized Agreement dated 10.03.2023 with the erstwhile possessor of the subject-plot no. 1. The petitioner has stated that he came into possession of another plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 325 & Annual [Eksonia] Patta no. 76, situate at the same village ['the subject-plot no. 2', for short] after execution of a notarized Agreement dated 10.03.2023 with the previous possessor of the subject-plot no. 2. The petitioner has stated that both subject-plots are adjacent to each other and are under the same Dag no. 325 & Annual [Eksonia] Patta no. 76. After coming into possession of the said two subject-plots measuring 4 Bighas in total, the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the two subject-plots. 3. When the State Government launched a scheme named ‘Mission Basundhara Scheme’ in order to streamline and resolve land related issues and for updation of land records, the petitioner submitted an application online under the scheme, ‘Basundhara 2.0’ on 29.03.2023 to avail the notified service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’. The petitioner has further stated that he submitted the application online for conversion of 3 Bighas of Annual Patta land to Periodic Patta land, out of the two subject- plots. The receipt of the said application was duly acknowledged in the Sewa Setu portal vide Application Reference no. RTPS/SAPH/2023/1509236 on 29.03.2023. While issuing acknowledgement, it was further mentioned that if the application would be accepted by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department then the notified service would be provided within 300 days. The receipt of the said application was duly acknowledged in the Sewa Setu portal vide Application Reference no. RTPS/SAPH/2023/1509236 on 29.03.2023. While issuing acknowledgement, it was further mentioned that if the application would be accepted by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department then the notified service would be provided within 300 days. It was further mentioned that if the service was not delivered within 300 days, the petitioner could prefer an appeal. The application submitted by the petitioner to avail notified service came to be rejected on 26.10.2023. 4. When the petitioner tried to obtain the status of his application in the comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu, he came to learn that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no. 5 on 26.10.2023 and Sewa Setu showed the application’s processing history as under :- Application tracking details Reference no. : RTPS/SAPH/2023/1509236 Submitted on : 2023-03-09 00:00:00 Applicant Name Pradip Kumar Dutta Service Name Settlement of AP transferred land from original AP holder Stipulated Delivery Date By 14th November, 2023 Current Status REJECTED Application processing history Date & Time Task details Remarks 2023-08-23 15:50:06 FORWARD, CO Notice Generated 2023-08-23 15:50:07 FORWARD, CO Forwarded to LM 2023-10-09 22:35:41 FORWARD, LM Forwarded to CO 2023-10-26 19:00:04 REJECT, CO Rejected by CO : Possession of land is disputed 5. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’ has been declared to be a notified public service under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 [‘the ARTPS Act’, for short] vide a Notification bearing no. RRG.77/2021/46 dated 14.03.2022. As per the said Notification, the Designated Public Servant [DPS] is the Circle Officer in rural areas for plots of lands like the subject-plots. As per the said Notification and the Citizen Charter annexed thereto as Annexure-I, the stipulated time limit for providing the service is ninety working days. Referring to the rejection order passed by the Designated Public Servant, annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the impugned rejection order is a non-speaking one. Considering the fact that the rejection order passed by the Designated Public Servant under the provisions of the ARTPS Act is an appealable order, obligation is cast on the Designated Public Servant to record the reasons for rejection. Gogoi has submitted that the impugned rejection order is a non-speaking one. Considering the fact that the rejection order passed by the Designated Public Servant under the provisions of the ARTPS Act is an appealable order, obligation is cast on the Designated Public Servant to record the reasons for rejection. Non-recording of reasons has made the rejection order an arbitrary one and the same is liable to be set aside. Due to cryptic nature of the order, the petitioner is also handicapped to prefer an appeal in an effective manner. 6. Ms. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 has submitted, on instruction received from the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Circle Officer, Amguri Revenue Circle, that there are good grounds for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner. Ms. Baruah has submitted that she has been provided with the reasons why the application submitted by the petitioner deserved to be rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the official respondents have submitted that since the order of rejection is an appealable one, the petitioner instead of invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, ought to have approached the appellate authority by preferring an appeal. 8. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the petitioner. I have also gone through the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended. 9. The Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, as amended, has been enacted by the Assam Legislative Assembly in order to provide for delivery of notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and was notified by a Notification dated 02.05.2012. The ARTPS Act has been published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 02.05.2012. 10. As per Section 2[h], ‘Right to Public Service’ means right to obtain the notified service under the ARTPS Act from time to time within the stipulated time limit as described under Section 5. Section 5 of the ARTPS Act has laid down that every eligible person shall have the right to obtain the services in accordance with the ARTPS Act within the time bound period as notified under Section 4. Section 5 of the ARTPS Act has laid down that every eligible person shall have the right to obtain the services in accordance with the ARTPS Act within the time bound period as notified under Section 4. It is the liability of the Designated Government Servant to deliver services, under Section 6 of the ARTPS Act, within the stipulated period. The stipulated time limit, as per Section 7[1], starts from the date when the application for obtaining a required notified service is submitted to the Designated Public Servant or to a person subordinate to him authorized to receive the application. It is further mentioned that such application shall be duly acknowledged. 11. As per Section 7[2], the Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application under sub-section [1] shall, within the stipulated time limit, provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of application, he shall record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application, [i] the reasons for such rejection; [ii] the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and [iii] the particulars of the Appellate Authority. 12. Section 8 of the ARTPS Act has provided for an appeal before the Appellate Authority and also for a review before the Reviewing Authority. As per sub-section [1] of Section 8 any person, whose application is rejected under subsection [2] of Section 7 or who has not been provided the notified service within the stipulated time limit, may file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of rejection of application or the expiry of the stipulated time limit. 13. The first proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 8 has provided that the Appellate Authority may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days but in no case beyond sixty days or the expiry of the stipulated time limit for delivery of that particular notified service, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The second proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 8 has provided further that in case of rejection of an application for a notified service for which any other law for the time being in force prescribes remedy, the applicant shall follow the process under such law for the time being in force. 14. The second proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 8 has provided further that in case of rejection of an application for a notified service for which any other law for the time being in force prescribes remedy, the applicant shall follow the process under such law for the time being in force. 14. The Notification dated 14.03.2022 is on the subject :- ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’. The Notification has been issued with a view to provide delivery of public service to eligible citizens within the stipulated time limit and others as under :- Subject: Declaration of Service under Revenue & D.M. Department as per provision of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. With a view to provide the delivery of Public Service to the eligible citizens within stipulated time limit, the following service of Revenue & D.M. Department has been identified as Notified under Section 4 of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. Service Name : Conversion of Land from Annual Patta [AP] to Periodic Patta [PP]. Conversion is a process through which status of any land settled for one year [Annual Patta] is changed to longer tenure. Once the AP land is converted to PP land, land owner shall have a permanent, heritable and transferrable right of use and occupancy in his land. * * Criteria/Conditions for Conversion of AP to PP : As per the provisions of Rule 105 of Assam Land Records Manual, 1906 all applications for conversion should be inquired into and disposed of, as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The following conditions need to be fulfilled in this regard : · The land should be demarcated and actually surveyed. · The land must be in a village which has been traversed, surveyed, mapped and classed. · The land must be actually cultivated with some permanent crop of occupied for permanent residential purposes. · Rule 23 of the Settlement Rules framed under the ALRR, 1886 provides that no new periodic patta shall be issued in respect of land within one chain [66 feet] of the 35 feet reservation along roads maintained by the State or the Union Government without special orders from the Govt. · Rule 23 of the Settlement Rules framed under the ALRR, 1886 provides that no new periodic patta shall be issued in respect of land within one chain [66 feet] of the 35 feet reservation along roads maintained by the State or the Union Government without special orders from the Govt. Further, the conversion of Annual Lease into periodic will be limited to : · The maximum area allowed to be held in rural area as per provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on land Holding Act, 1959, as amended, inclusive of the periodic land already held by the family of the settlement holder; · While granting conversion of A.P. into P.P. in rural area, no portion of land falling within 22.5 metres [75 feet] from the centre line of the P.W.D. Road / N.H. way and falling within 15 metres [50 feet] from the centre line of the roads other than P.W.D. / N.H. way will be converted into periodic. · The land applied for conversion should be in the name of the original AP holder or his/her legal heir. No conversion is admitted for the portion of AP land which is transferred in violation of Rules. 15. The afore-stated conversion is a process through which status of any land settled for one year [Annual Patta] is changed to longer tenure. Once the Annual Patta land is converted to Periodic Patta land, the landowner would have a permanent, heritable and transferrable right of use and occupancy in his land. The criteria/condition for conversion of Annual Patta [A.P.] land to Periodic Patta [P.P.] land have already been mentioned in the Notification dated 14.03.2022. As per the said Notification, the Designated Public Servant will be the Circle Officer in respect of rural areas excluding the area falling within the radius of 15 kms from the boundary in case of Gauhati Municipal Corporation and 5 kms in case of other Municipal and Revenue Towns. 16. The Notification has further provided for procedural steps to be followed by the authorities involved in providing the notified public services. The Notification has further mentioned about the user charges. 16. The Notification has further provided for procedural steps to be followed by the authorities involved in providing the notified public services. The Notification has further mentioned about the user charges. As per the Citizen Charter annexed to the Notification as Annexure-I, for the notified public service ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’, the Circle Officer is the Designated Public Servant and the stipulated time limit for providing the service is mentioned as ninety days. In the Citizen Charter, the Commissioner of Divisions has been mentioned as the appellate authority. It is submitted by Ms. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department that the office of the Commissioner of Divisions has been abolished in the meantime and presently, by another Notification dated 16.11.2023, the Revenue & Disaster Management Department has been made the appellate authority. 17. In the case in hand, the application submitted by the petitioner for the notified public service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’ has been rejected by the jurisdictional Circle Officer [the respondent no. 5] citing the following reason :‘Rejected by CO. Possession of land is disputed’. 18. On perusal of the impugned Order of rejection, it is evidently clear that the impugned Order is not in conformity with Section 7[2] of the ARTPS Act. 19. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, more particularly, when the authority is statutory authority then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The authority exercising the statutory power must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is not expressly or impliedly dispensed with. It is implicit in the principles of natural justice or fair play that an authority which has been vested with the power to decide the matter should record reasons as it is part of fair procedure, more particularly, when the decision is likely to affect the person concerned. Recording of reasons is also prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind on the part of the authority. Recording of reasons is also prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind on the part of the authority. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the statutory power to take a decision which is likely to affect the right of the person concerned. When the statute itself contains a prescription to record reasons in the decision, absence of reasons in the decision falls short of prescription and would be in violation of the prescription and thus, illegal. 20. The recording of reasons in the order passed by the Designated Public Servant who deals with the matter at the first stage, is necessary. The responsibility to record reasons is higher when the order to be passed by the original authority at the first stage by the Designated Public Servant is an appealable order. An order which affects the right of a citizen or a person, requires recording of reasons as the reasons recorded would aid the appellate authority to see whether the original authority concerned has acted fairly and reasonably to the aggrieved person. Under the ARTPS Act, an applicant at least has the right to get the application decided. The recording of reasons in the order, more particularly, when the adverse order has the possibility of impacting a citizen or a person adversely is necessary as then only the person aggrieved can have the knowledge of the reasons as to why the order has been passed and he can have a proper opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate authority that the reasons which impelled the Designated Public Servant to pass the adverse order against him, are erroneous, arbitrary, unjust, etc. 21. It has been canvassed on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition in order to invoke the extra-ordinary remedy instead of availing an alternative statutory remedy which is adequate and efficacious. 21. It has been canvassed on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition in order to invoke the extra-ordinary remedy instead of availing an alternative statutory remedy which is adequate and efficacious. It is settled law that even in presence of an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal, a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on the ground :- [i] where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; or [ii] where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or [iii] where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or [iv] where the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. 22. In the case in hand, the Designated Public Servant has rejected the application based on his view regarding disputed possession, without, however, disclosing in what manner the possession has been found disputed which would have enabled the petitioner to contest the same by preferring an appeal in an effective manner showing grounds against the reasons given by the Designated Public Servant. 23. In the case in hand, the petitioner has alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. The Designated Public Servant while deciding his application for the notified public service, by not passing a reasoned and speaking order has violated the principles of natural justice. 24. In view of the above fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that when the incident of vulnerability of the order of rejection on the touchstone of not meeting the statutory prescription of recording reasons and violation of principles of natural justice is considered against the point canvassed by the official respondents regarding non-filing of appeal it is the vulnerability of the order of rejection of the application which would far outweigh the other reason regarding the petitioner not approaching the appellate forum. 25. In the above obtaining fact situation, the Court finds it apposite to refer to the following observations made in the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 1 SCC 405 :- 8. 25. In the above obtaining fact situation, the Court finds it apposite to refer to the following observations made in the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 1 SCC 405 :- 8. …… when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji : Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. 26. Thus, from every standpoint, the impugned Order of rejection dated 26.10.2023 is not a speaking order as such, the impugned Order dated 26.10.2023 is found to be one which is passed without any application of mind. For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned order of rejection dated 26.10.2023 cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. 27. As the order of rejection has been set aside, it is now the obligation of the Designated Public Servant to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the notified public service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’ strictly in compliance of the provisions of Section 7[2] of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended; and the Notification dated 14.03.2022; and to pass a speaking and reasoned order within the period of ninety days from the date of submission of a copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the Designated Public Servant. 28. 28. With the observations made and directions given above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.