206 IN THE CORAM : HO Present:- Mr Ms Mr LAPITA BANE In Constitution of certiorari, quash P-5) passed by Rs.1,69,055/- recovered on ac and registration is the order da Divisional Com 2. Lea that both the ord by reliance on Without apprec THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION Versus HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Singla, Advocate for the Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab. NERJI, J.(ORAL) In the present writ petition filed u on of India, the petitioners have pray quashing the impugned order dated sed by the learned District Collector, from the petitioners-purchasers on account of deficient stamp duty ration fee to the tune of Rs.33,811/-. F der dated November 10, 2020 (Ann l Commissioner, Patiala, dismissing th Learned counsel appearing on beha the orders impugned are non-speaking e on an internal audit reports for the appreciating the contents of the audi AB AND HARYANA AT ISION : JANUARY 15, 2025 …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT APITA BANERJI for the petitioners. filed under Article 226/227 of the e prayed for issuance of a writ of dated May 26, 2015 (Annexure lector, Barnala whereby a sum of chasers has been sought to be duty to the tune of Rs.1,35,244/- . Furthermore, under challenge (Annexure P-7) passed by the sing the appeal. n behalf of the petitioners submits eaking and have been passed only r the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. e audit reports and analysing the re PRINCE SAINI 2025.01.17 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment basis on which initiated the ex Only cursory agreement with solely on that b sought to be rec 3. The his mind. In th cursorily stated petitioners-purc reason was give found, not to wa 4. Lea the reply to the that there is n Collector, Barna three years fro infirmity in the he contends tha after four years an appeal was o which such dela Divisional Com which the same were made, the Colle ex parte proceedings against the finding had been made stating t with the documents contained in the that basis, the additional stamp duty be recovered from the petitioners-purc The Divisional Commissioner also In the impugned order dated Novem stated that he had applied his mind to t purchasers and perused the record s given as to why the impugned order t to warrant any interference. Learned counsel appearing on beh to the writ petition has already been t is no infirmity in the order pass , Barnala on May 26, 2015 since the s rs from the date of the sale deed. in the order passed by the Divisional C ds that the appeal before the Division years and 09 months whereas the sta was only 30 days. The petitioners fail delay in filing the appeal was requ l Commissioner. Collector accepted the same and st the purchasers of the property. stating that the Collector was in in the file of the audit reports and p duty and registration fee were purchasers of the property. r also did not independently apply November 10, 2020, he had also nd to the submissions made by the record available on the file. No order passed by the Collector was n behalf of the State submits that been taken on record. He submits r passed by the learned District e the same has been passed within deed. Consequently, there is no ional Commissioner. Furthermore, ivisional Commissioner was filed the statutory period for preferring rs failed to explain the reasons for s required to be condoned by the PRINCE SAINI 2025.01.17 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5. Thi perused the mat 6. It a no independent duty has been internal audit Furthermore, t Commissioner. 7. Thi the petitioners- other modes of under the Code being effected publication. Wi of a party canno of law that a qu passed by it. A Apex Court in Ltd. and anoth 08.09.2010. An independent min 8. In finds the impug speaking one an This Court has heard the learned e material on record. It appears from the impugned ord ndent assessment with regard to the been made by the Collector. The C audit wing’s reports for the year ore, the proceedings were conclud ioner. This Court finds that even if, the n -purchasers due to non-mentionin des of substituted service could have Code of Civil Procedure. No reason ected through notice of proclamation Without affording an opportunity cannot be adversely affected. Furtherm quasi judicial authority requires to A beneficial reference is made to rt in Civil Appeal No.7472 of 2010 another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed K An order which is non-speaking nt mind and without any reasons cann In the light of the discussion ma impugned order dated May 26, 2015 and is hereby set aside. Conseque arned counsel for the parties and ed order dated May 26, 2015 that to the enhancement of the stamp The Collector had only relied on years 2012-13 and 2013-14. oncluded ex parte before the , the notice could not be served on tioning of the house numbers, still have been effected as stipulated reason has been stated for service mation only and not by way of unity of hearing the vested rights urthermore, it is a settled principle ires to give reasons for the orders ade to the judgment passed by the 2010 M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. ed Khan and others decided on aking, without any application of cannot be sustained in law. on made hereinabove, this Court , 2015 to be arbitrary and a non- sequently, the order passed by the PRINCE SAINI 2025.01.17 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Divisional Com is also set aside. petitioners-purc 1899 upon issui an opportunity o 9. Wi disposed of. 10. Con JANUARY 15 Prince Whether speakin Whether reportab l Commissioner on November 10, 20 aside. The Collector is directed to asse purchasers, afresh under Section 47 n issuing notice to the petitioners-purc unity of hearing. With the directions aforesaid, C Connected application(s), if any, sh 15, 2025 peaking/reasoned : Yes/No eportable : Yes/No 10, 2020 upholding the said order to assess the liability, if any of the on 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, purchasers and also giving them aid, CWP No.20515 of 2021 is any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE PRINCE SAINI 2025.01.17 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment