Sr. No.102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.02.2025 Maninder Pal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab.

***

LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral)

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of orders dated August 4, 2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3-Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Jalandhar and of the order dated December 11, 2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders suffer from error of law on the face of the record as the authorities themselves failed to take into consideration two Notifications both dated November 2, 2015 vide No.S.O.47/C.A. XVI/1908/Ss. 78 and 79/2015 and No.S.O.48/CA2/1899/S.9/2015. As per the aforesaid Notifications, no registration fee or stamp duty was leviable for registration of instrument regarding transfer of immovable property by an owner during his life time to his/her spouse and to any blood relation, namely son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandson and grand-daughter. The relevant extract of the second Notification is reproduced hereinafter:-

“On the instruments pertaining to the transfer of immovable property by an owner during his life time to his/her spouse and to any in blood relation, namely son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandson and grand-daughter.”

3. He submits that during registration of the deed in question, it was clearly written that due to the operation of the aforesaid Notifications, the whole stamp duty and the registration fees were exempted as the same was executed between the blood relations. However, the Collector/respondent No.3 passed an ex parte order imposing stamp duty and registration fee. In appeal, respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner also passed a non- speaking order again failing to take into account the purport and scope of the aforesaid Notifications.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.17036-2016 “Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others” decided on 15.10.2018.

5. Issue notice to the respondents.

6. Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and submits that the appeal was filed belatedly and was barred by limitation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Upon perusal of the impugned orders dated August 4, 2017 and December 11, 2024, it appears to the mind of this Court that the true scope, purport and effect of the aforesaid Notifications were not taken into account while passing the impugned orders. Respondent No.3 mentioned the aforesaid Notifications in his order but passed a completely unreasoned and non- speaking order. No reason was provided as to why the said Notifications were not applicable to the facts of the case.

9. It is trite law that any quasi judicial authority deciding a dispute has to provide reasons in the order 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. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“17. The expression ‘speaking order’ was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 188-97 Vol. 4 Apeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report)

18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a q