HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35772 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 16.12.2023, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner after paying due stamp duty with respect to an agricultural land. He further submits that on 19.10.2023, an ex parte inspection report was submitted and on the basis of the inspection, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated and deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, were imposed, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that there was no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and therefore, the land in question cannot be treated as abadi. He further submits that the inspection has been made without giving any notice or intimation to the petitioner. He further submits that in the memo of appeal, a specific Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kishore Pandey, Ram Mangal Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajveer Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) ground no. 9 was taken that neither any notice was served, nor sufficient service of notice is reflected from the order sheet maintained by the Collector, but still an ex parte order was passed. He further submits that on the basis of the spot inspection, a case can be registered, but the Collector is duty-bound to inspect the site before passing the impugned order. In support of her submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024] and Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 19644/2016, decided 13.04.2023]. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the property in question has been purchased after paying requisite stamp duty and on the basis of the report, ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The record shows that before passing the impugned order, neither any notice was issued, nor sufficiency of service of notice is reflected in the order sheet of the Collector. The petitioner has specifically taken the ground before the appellate authority about non-issuance of notice or insufficiency of service upon the petitioner, but the same has not been considered while passing the impugned order. The record further shows that a specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal with regard to non-compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. Further, the petitioner has also taken the ground that no declaration has been made under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and in absence of such declaration, the proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner. 8. This Court 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. 9. This Court in Jagvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 27928/2021, decided on 26.11.2024], and Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & WRIC No. 35772 of 2024 2 Others [Writ C No. 19644/2016, decided 13.04.2023] 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. 10. Since the specific compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act has not been made as neither the petitioner was put to any notice before the spot inspection, nor any opportunity was given to him, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter requires reconsideration. 12. For the said purpose, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 14. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, i.e., the respondent no. 2, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 2. September 22, 2025 Amit Mishra WRIC No. 35772 of 2024 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad