CWP-22937 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kashmir Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure P required him in stamp duty, along with Rs.27,250/ order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order, has also been dismissed by the Divis 2. of notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel, and even filed reply to the proceedings initiated under Section 47 Act, 1899. He fairly on behalf of either of the parties on 06.06.2017, the matter was adjourned 22937-2022 (O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: Kashmir Singh Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate, and Ms. Yukti Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by instituting instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure P-3), vide which, the District Collector required him to pay an amount of Rs.4,55,850/ in stamp duty, along with Rs.27,250/- as registration charges. Further, the order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), is also assailed, whereby, the statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order, has also been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel, and even filed reply to the proceedings initiated under Section 47 99. He fairly admits that, in the interregnum, when none appeared on behalf of either of the parties on 06.06.2017, the matter was adjourned 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22937-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The petitioner, by instituting instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order 3), vide which, the District Collector to pay an amount of Rs.4,55,850/- on account of deficiency as registration charges. Further, the 1), is also assailed, whereby, the statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order, has also been ional Commissioner, being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel, and even filed reply to the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp that, in the interregnum, when none appeared on behalf of either of the parties on 06.06.2017, the matter was adjourned s The petitioner, by instituting instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order 3), vide which, the District Collector unt of deficiency as registration charges. Further, the 1), is also assailed, whereby, the statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order, has also been Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel, and even filed Stamp that, in the interregnum, when none appeared on behalf of either of the parties on 06.06.2017, the matter was adjourned AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-22937 to 27.06.2017 District Collector passed the impugned ord petitioner liable to pay the abovesaid amount towards deficiency in stamp duty and registration charges 3. pass any formal order, proceeding the petitioner against straightaway passed the impugned order behind his back. petitioner the recovery notice. Aggrieved along with an application Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P dismissed 4. matter of record that petitioner had appeared before the District Collector on many occasions, therefore, he cannot raise the plea of ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings. Likewise, the Divisional Commissioner did not commit any error, while hopelessly barred by time. 5. also perused the record. 6. by passing a totally non appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed recording a single line that he failed to explain any cogent reason to condone the delay 22937-2022 (O&M) -2 to 27.06.2017, and thereafter to 28.06.2017. However, on 30.06.2017, the District Collector passed the impugned ord petitioner liable to pay the abovesaid amount towards deficiency in stamp and registration charges. He asserts that astonishingly any formal order, proceeding the petitioner against straightaway passed the impugned order behind his back. petitioner came to know about the impugned order the recovery notice. Aggrieved thereby, h along with an application for condonation of delay Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P dismissed the appeal being time barred, without recording On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that it is a f record that petitioner had appeared before the District Collector on many occasions, therefore, he cannot raise the plea of ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings. Likewise, the Divisional Commissioner did not commit any error, while dismiss hopelessly barred by time. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record. Ex facie, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal by passing a totally non-speaking and cryptic order. In o appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed recording a single line that he failed to explain any cogent reason to condone the delay. 2- 28.06.2017. However, on 30.06.2017, the District Collector passed the impugned order, thereby holding the petitioner liable to pay the abovesaid amount towards deficiency in stamp that astonishingly, the District Collector did not any formal order, proceeding the petitioner against ex parte, and straightaway passed the impugned order behind his back. Further, the came to know about the impugned order only upon receiving , he preferred a statutory appeal, for condonation of delay. However, the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), without recording any finding. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that it is a f record that petitioner had appeared before the District Collector on many occasions, therefore, he cannot raise the plea of ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings. Likewise, the Divisional Commissioner dismissing the appeal, as it was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal speaking and cryptic order. In other words, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed being time barred, by recording a single line that he failed to explain any cogent reason to 28.06.2017. However, on 30.06.2017, the er, thereby holding the petitioner liable to pay the abovesaid amount towards deficiency in stamp did not and the upon receiving preferred a statutory appeal, . However, the 1), On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that it is a f record that petitioner had appeared before the District Collector on many occasions, therefore, he cannot raise the plea of ignorance about the pendency of the proceedings. Likewise, the Divisional Commissioner the appeal, as it was This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal ther words, the , by recording a single line that he failed to explain any cogent reason to AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-22937 7. supported and the conclusion arrived at. under obligation to ensure transparency but also superior Forums/ rendered indefensible 8. that the order rendered by the Divisional Commissioner cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, and the same is matter is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner concerned adjudication afresh, in the light of the abovesaid observations. Accordingly, the condonation of delay, a speaking 9. terms. 22.07.2026 Ak Sharma 22937-2022 (O&M) -3 It is a settled proposition of law that every order supported by reasons, as they constitute a pivotal and the conclusion arrived at. Even the under obligation to accompany their orders with ensure transparency but also facilitate the pro Forums/Courts. In the absence of cogent reasons, indefensible, as is the position in the matter at hand In the wake of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order rendered by the Divisional Commissioner cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, and the same is matter is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner concerned adjudication afresh, in the light of the abovesaid observations. Accordingly, the appeal of the petitioner, along with an application for condonation of delay, shall be considered and speaking order, but after hearing the parties concerned Resultantly, the petition is party allowed, in the abovesaid .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3- It is a settled proposition of law that every order must be constitute a pivotal nexus between the facts Even the quasi judicial authorities are accompany their orders with reasons, which not only facilitate the process of judicial review by In the absence of cogent reasons, every order is in the matter at hand. In the wake of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order rendered by the Divisional Commissioner cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, and the same is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner concerned for adjudication afresh, in the light of the abovesaid observations. appeal of the petitioner, along with an application for shall be considered and decided afresh, by passing after hearing the parties concerned. Resultantly, the petition is party allowed, in the abovesaid (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No must be nexus between the facts authorities are which not only cess of judicial review by is In the wake of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order rendered by the Divisional Commissioner cannot withstand the for adjudication afresh, in the light of the abovesaid observations. appeal of the petitioner, along with an application for ided afresh, by passing Resultantly, the petition is party allowed, in the abovesaid AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document