Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49540 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2119 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Lath Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan,Ankit Pande,Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgement and order dated 29.03.2019, whereby the deficiency of stamp duty was assessed against the petitioner as well as the order dated 18.08.2023, whereby the revision preferred under Section 56 of the India Stamp Act, 1899 was dismissed. 3. The neat contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner had purchased the property in question by means of a sale deed registered on 13.04.2015. Subsequently, on the basis of some inspection carried out on 30.03.2017, the proceedings were initiated under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. It is stated that neither the petitioner was present at the time of alleged inspection nor the inspection report was ever provided and based upon the inspection report alone, the order impugned assessing the deficiency of stamp duty was passed. 4. The order impugned reveals that on the inspection done on 30.03.2017, a boundary wall was found constructed over the property in question and thus, a view was formed that three separate sale deeds of a common land was got executed only with a view to avoid payment of the requisite stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the property in question was purchased, the same was an agricultural property and thereafter, to secure the property, the boundary wall was constructed and subsequent construction would not alter the payment of stamp duty, which is to be paid on the basis of the condition of the land at the time of execution of sale deed and cannot be assessed based upon the subsequent construction raised thereon. 6. Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the orders impugned, it is clear that no inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The inspection was also not done in presence of the petitioner, which is required in terms of the rules framed under the Act. As such, on these two infirmities alone, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. 7. However, thee respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh orders after providing a copy of the inspection report and after giving an opportunity of defence to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench