Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41781 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6803 of 2019 Petitioner :- Usha Agarwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the respondent no.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by registered sale deed dated 4.1.2008, a residential house was purchased by the petitioners after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof, as prevalent on the date of execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, on the report dated 1.4.2010 of Additional District Magistrate whereby the ground floor of the property in dispute were treated as commercial in place of residential, proceedings under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners and on the basis of said report, an order dated 31.03.2011 was passed, holding the deficiency of stamp duty along with penalty plus interest @ 1.5% per month upon the petitioners, against which an appeal was filed, which was dismissed without considering the material available on record. 4. He further submits that no cogent material was brought on record to show that the house in question was commercial in nature and not residential, however, the same has been treated as commercial in nature without any evidence on record. He next submits that in the alleged enquiry report dated 01.04.2010, on the basis of which the aforesaid proceedings were initiated, no inspection memo was prepared and therefore, wrong finding has been recorded by the authorities. An specific averment has been made in para no.10 of the instant writ petition, which has not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit. 5. He further submits that when the inspection memo was not prepared, which is the sole basis for initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is bad. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders. 7. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 8. The record shows that the house in question was purchased by the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 04.01.2008 whereupon on the basis of the report of the Additional District Magistrate, wherein the ground floor of the house in question has been treated as commercial in nature, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. However, a specific pleading has been made in para no.10 of the writ petition that no inspection memo was prepared, this fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Once the basis for initiation of proceedings are not followed, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re- consideration. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3 for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order bringing on record and considering the inspection memo, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. Any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the respondent no.3. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad