Pushkar Raj And Anr vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 915 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pushkar Raj And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2025

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005129




CWP-20515-2021
          2021


206
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                          CWP-20515-2021
                          DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 15, 2025

PUSHKAR RAJ AND ANR                                        ...PETITIONERS
                                 Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                       ...RESPONDENT



CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:-   Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate and
            Ms. Manvi Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

J.

In the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of

certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated May 26, 2015 (Annexure

P-5) passed sed by the learned District Collector, Barnala whereby a sum of

Rs.1,69,055/- from the petitioners-purchasers purchasers has been sought to be

recovered on account of deficient stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,35,244/-

and registration fee to the tune of Rs.33,811/-.

Rs.33,811/ . Furthermore, under challenge

is the order dated November 10, 2020 (Annexure P P-7) passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, dismissing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits

that both the orders impugned are non-speaking non speaking and have been passed only

by reliance on an internal audit reports forr the years 2012 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Without ithout appreciating the contents of the audit reports and analy analysing the

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005129

CWP-20515-2021

basis on which the same were made, the Collector accepted the same and

initiated the ex parte proceedings against the purchasers of the property.

Only cursory finding had been made stating that the Collector was in

agreement with the documents contained contained in the file of the audit reports and

solely on that basis, basis the additional stamp mp duty and registration fee were

sought to be recovered from the petitioners-purchasers purchasers of the property.

3. The Divisional Commissioner also did not independ independently apply

his mind. In the impugned order dated November 110, 2020, he had also

cursorily stated that he had applied his mind to the submissions made by the

petitioners-purchasers purchasers and perused the record available on the file. No

reason was given as to why the impugned impugned order passed by the Collector was

found, not to warrant any interference.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submi submits that

the reply to the writ petition has already been taken on record. He submits

that there is no infirmity in the order order passed by the learned District

Collector, Barnala on May 26, 2015 since the same has been passed within

three years from the date of the sale deed. Consequently, there is no

infirmity in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Furthermore,

he contends that the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was filed

after four years and 09 months whereas the statutory period for preferring

an appeal was only 30 days. The petitioners failed to explain the reasons for

which such delay in filing the appeal peal was required to be condoned by the

Divisional Commissioner.

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005129

CWP-20515-2021

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

6. It appears from the impugned order dated May 26, 2015 that

no independent assessment with regard to the enhancement of the stamp

duty has been made by the the Collector. The Collector had only relied on

internal audit wing's reports for the years 2012 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Furthermore, the proceedings were concluded ex parte before the

Commissioner.

7. This Court finds that even if, the notice could not be served on

the petitioners--purchasers due to non-mentioning mentioning of the house numbers, still

other modes of substituted service could have been effected as stipulated

under the Code of Civil Procedure. No reason has been stated for service

being effected through notice of proclamation only and not by way of

publication. Without affording an opportunity of hearing the vested rights

of a party cannot be adversely affected. Furthermore, it is a settled pri principle

of law that a quasi judicial authority requires to give reasons for the orders

passed by it. A beneficial reference is made to the judgment passed by the

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7472 of 2010 M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.

Ltd. and another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others decided on

08.09.2010. An order which is non-speaking non speaking, without any application of

independent mind and without any reasons cannot be sustain sustained in law.

8. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court

finds the impugned order dated May 26, 2015 to be arbitrary and a non-

speaking one and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005129

CWP-20515-2021

Divisional Commissioner on November 10, 2020 upholding the said order

is also set aside. The Collector is directed to assess the liability, if any of the

petitioners-purchasers purchasers, afresh under Section 47 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899 upon issuing notice to the petitioners-purchasers petitioners purchasers and also giving them

an opportunity of hearing.

hea

9. With the directions aforesaid, CWP No.20515 of 2021 is

disposed of.

10. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE

JANUARY 15, 15 2025 Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4