Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111988 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41478 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shri Sudhir Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Ms. Suman Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad as well as the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 28.01.2021, the petitioner purchased agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. She further submits that an ex parte spot inspection report was prepared and on the basis of the same, proceedings under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act were initiated and show cause notice was issued on 08.06.2021. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 14.03.2024, the respondent no. 3 imposed the deficiency of stamp duty, along with penalty and interest. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.11.2024. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the land in question was agricultural land as no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was made. She further submits that no notice was served upon the petitioner before the spot inspection. She further submits that the nature of the land cannot be changed without due procedure and its future potential cannot be the ground to hold deficiency of stamp duty and as such, the impugned order is bad in law. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Prayag Dant Vigyan Anusandhan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others [Writ C No. 15140/2019, decided on 12.08.2024], Reena Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2020 (2) AWC 1782] and M/s Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited Vs. CCRA & Others [Writ C No. 12727/2012, decided on 13.12.2010]. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the land in question has not been declared as abadi under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act at the time of execution of the sale deed. This Court in Prayag Dant Vigyan Anusandhan (supra) has held that unless & until declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act is made, the land cannot be treated as otherwise. The issue is squarely covered by the adjudication made by this Court in Prayag Dant Vigyan Anusandhan (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad as well as the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 10. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad