Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64126 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34718 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Anita Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Prasad,Rakesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 30.04.2007, the petitioner purchased a house for residential purpose after paying the requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. Thereafter, on the basis of report dated 14.05.2007 submitted by Sub-Registrar-III, the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut passed the order dated 30.01.2008 holding the deficiency of stamp duty as well as penalty and interest @ 1.5% per month. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 02.07.2008. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 02.07.2008, the District Magistrate passed the order dated 12.01.2024 against which stamp appeal was filed, which was partially allowed instead of allowing in toto, without considering the material available on record. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question has wrongly been shown as a commercial property by the Sub-registrar such as at the time of execution of the sale deed in the year 2007, the plot in question was a residential property and no commercial activity was going on. He further submits that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and as such, the impugned orders are bad in law. 5. He further submits that in the grounds of appeal, a specific plea has been made that there is no compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that specific grounds are also taken in the writ petition in paragraph no. 23, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased in the year 2007 and thereafter, on the basis of ex parte report, the proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated, but 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, no finding was recorded with regard to the same in the impugned order. Once in spite of specific ground being taken by the petitioner before the authorities below that no finding has been recorded in the impugned orders, and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re- consideration. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder as well as giving the due opportunity and liberty to the petitioner herein to adduce and produce relevant material and evidence in his favour, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad