CR No.3631 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.3631 of 1994 Date of Decision: 7.1.2011 State of Punjab and others .....Petitioners Vs. Surinder Kumar and another ....Respondents CR No.3632 of 1994 State of Punjab and others .....Petitioners Vs. Kanwaljit Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision nos.3631 of 1994 and 3632 of 1994, as they involve adjudication of identical questions of law. The State of Punjab impugns an order dated 28.1.1994, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, accepting an appeal filed by the respondents against an order dated 14.12.1992, passed by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as respondent no.1 made a statement, before the Collector,that he is ready to pay the shortfall, if any in stamp duty, the Additional District Judge, could not have allowed his CR No.3631 of 1994 2 appeal. It is further argued that as the Collector has recorded his finding about the shortfall in stamp duty on the basis of the Chandra Committee Report and the report filed by the Tehsildar, findings recorded by the Additional District Judge, Patiala that the Collector has passed a cyclostyled order without considering the sale deed and the report of the Tehsildar, is factually incorrect. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector discloses a legal and valid exercise of quasi judicial power that should have been affirmed by the appellate court. The last argument addressed by counsel for the petitioners is that while setting aside the order passed by the Collector, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, should have remitted the matter to the Collector for a fresh adjudication. Counsel for the respondents submits the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, is legal and valid and therefore, does not call for interference. I have heard counsel for the State of Punjab and find no reason in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere in the impugned order. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, has rightly recorded a clear and cogent finding that the Collector has passed an order on a cyclostyled proforma after filling in blanks without taking into consideration the fact that respondents were lessees for the last 10 years in the building that they purchased. The Collector failed to peruse the lease deed, the report submitted by the Tehsildar and in fact passed a non-speaking order. The operative part of the order reads as follows :- “ After considering I have gone through the conclusion that the sale deed in question has been CR No.3631 of 1994 3 stamped under value and order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act that the concerned parties should deposit into treasury Rs.15981-25 paise as per Chandra Committee Report with regard to the less payment of the stamp duty and regn. fee.” A perusal of the above extract clearly reveals a failure to exercise quasi judicial jurisdiction in accordance with law. A quasi judicial authority is required to record a reasoned order preceded by a process of reasoning. The impugned order is devoid of the essential ingredients of the quasi judicial order. However, there is an important aspect of the case, which requires consideration. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, while setting aside the impugned order, should have, in fairness to the rights of the State of Punjab to claim stamp duty, remitted the matter to the Collector, Patiala, to decide the matter afresh. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, accepted the appeal in its entirety without remitting the matter to the Collector. In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is dismissed, but the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 28.1.1994 is modified to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Collector, Patiala, to determine the matter afresh and in accordance with law, within a period of three months. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Patiala, on 15.3.2011. 7.1.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE CR No.3631 of 1994 4