Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73656 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32988 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ravindra Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide sale deed dated 17.08.2013, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land after paying due stamp duty. On 27.01.2014, an ex parte inspection report was prepared stating that a boundary wall is constructed and as such, the land is non-agricultural and deficiency of stamp duty was pointed out. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted its reply. Not being satisfied with the reply, vide impugned order dated 30.5.2014, deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, was imposed, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the appeal, specific ground was taken that boundary wall existing in the land, is of adjacent land and the same was not constructed by the petitioner over his land. Further ground was taken that there is no compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. It was also stated that there is no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. ZA & LR Act declaring the land to be abadi. He further submits that once the land use has not been changed under section 143 of the U.P. ZA & LR Act, the land cannot be treated as non-agricultural. On the basis of the report, the case can be registered, but it was incumbent upon the Collector to comply with the provisions of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act after intimating the petitioner for the spot inspection, but the same has not been done. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 19644/2016, decided 13.04.2023], Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024], M/s Uttaranchal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCRA & Others [Writ C No. 12727/2012, decided on 06.03.2024] and Charan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others [Writ C No. 58674/2014, decided on 29.05.2024]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a report and the stamp case was registered on the basis that the land was surrounded by boundary wall, to which an objection was filed specifically stating that the boundary wall was not in the land in dispute, but the same is on adjacent land, but no finding has been recorded by the authorities below with regard to the same. Further, in spite of the specific ground having been taken in the memo of appeal with regard to non-compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, the same has not been considered while passing the impugned order. The respondent has failed to brought on record any material to show that the land in dispute was declared as non-agricultural under section 143 of the U.P. ZA & LR Act. In absence of any material that the land use has been changed, the land in dispute cannot be treated as abadi. The issue in hand is not res integra. This Court in in Jagroop Singh (supra) has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the impugned order cannot be justified. Further, in Raj Kumar (supra), this Court has specifically held that the proceedings under sections 47-A/33 of the Stamp Act cannot be justified treating the agricultural land as abadi land without there being any declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. In view of the aforesaid discussions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad