DEEPAK BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide an order dated 05.10.2012 (Annexure P-6), impugned herein, respondent No.3/District Collector has directed the petitioner to deposit the deficient stamp duty along with deficient registration charges amounting to Rs.3,58,472/- qua a sale deed to convey land measuring 1 Kanal 4.83 marlas in the name of petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues pointing out certain alleged procedural irregularities. He submits that no notice was issued by the Sub Registrar to the vendee before sending the matter to the Collector. Even otherwise, Sub Registrar could not have referred the matter to Collector, after a lapse of more than two years and four months of registration of document, contends the counsel.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that neither the Collector nor appellate authority/Commissioner has given any cogent and valid reason while passing the impugned recovery order and appellate order dated 05.10.2012 and 19.02.2014 respectively. Being non-speaking, both the said orders are liable to set aside.