Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30080 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6743 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sheela Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Onkar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.2014, the petitioner purchased a residential plot after paying due stamp duty. Thereafter, on 29.11.2014, an ex parte report was submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Khair to the respondent no. 3 with regard to deficiency of stamp duty. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted her reply. The respondent no. 3, vide impugned order dated 11.09.2015, imposed deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest and penalty. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.09.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no notice was served upon the petitioner before the spot inspection. He further submits that the character of the land cannot be the basis of its future potential and as such, the impugned order is bad in law. He further submits that in the ground nos. 5 & 7 of revision, 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 the aforesaid ground has also been pleaded in the writ petition, but no specific denial has been made by the State in the counter affidavit. In support of his 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], 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 short issue involved in the instant case is that there was a violation of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act as the petitioner was neither put to any notice before the spot inspection, nor she was present at the time of spot inspection, which was the basis for initiation of proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act. In the revision, the petitioner has taken the specific ground with regard to non-compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, but the appellate court has not recorded any finding with regard to the same while passing the impugned order. The same ground has been raised in the writ petition also, but no specific denial has been made by the State in the counter affidavit. 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. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned orders passed cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter requires reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Aligarh, i.e., the respondent no. 3, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 3. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad