Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21179 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3970 of 2022 Petitioner :- Surya Narayan Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 04.10.2021 passed in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in the State of U.P. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased an agricultural property, Plot No.493, situate in Village Chitaie Patti, Pargana Suruhurpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on 15.02.2020 and it was so recorded in the revenue records. Since it was near abadi, accordingly the petitioner had paid the higher stamp duty which is applicable on plot situate near the abadi as per the Collector rate list. 5. It is further urged that an alleged inspection was made by the State Authorities and on the basis of the alleged inspection, they found that there were certain constructions which were not indicated by the petitioner and in this regard high duty has been charged and the deficiency of Rs. 658750/- has been noticed towards stamp duty, Rs. 131810/- was noticed as deficiency towards registration fee and a total sum of Rs.7,90,560/- was imposed, alongwith Rs 10000/- which was imposed as penalty. 6. It is further urged that the said construction which is allegedly said to have been concealed by the petitioner belonged to some other person an it was on the adjacent plot and it did not belong to the petitioner nor it was on plot No. 493. 7. It is also submitted that there is violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp Rules as no notice was given to the petitioner for inspection which was done behind his back. There was no intention of the petitioner to evade the payment of stamp duty and in the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed in the proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act is patently erroneous. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 upheld the order passed by the respondent no.3 without applying its independent mind and as such for the said reason the order impugned is bad and deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents submits that as far as the inspection of the plot is concerned, the same was done in presence of the petitioner, hence it was not open for the petitioner to state that there was any violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp Act. 10. It is also urged that since constructions were found on the Plot No.493 which was purchased by the petitioner and those constructions were such which could not have been raised within a week from a date of purchase hence apparently the sale deed was executed by concealing the existence of the construction and in such circumstances the deficiency has been appropriately noticed alongwith imposition of penalty, hence it is not open for the petitioner to assail the said findings which have been affirmed by the Stamp Authorities, accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 12. From the perusal of the copy of the sale deed which have been brought on record as annexure no.3, it would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any construction existing on the said plot. It is not disputed that the petitioner had purchased Plot No.493. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the site-plan which is part of sale deed and it has been indicated that the said plot is near the chak marg (kharanja) and therefore the land being situate in the segment area near the abadi for which the petitioner has paid the appropriate stamp duty as indicated by the Collector. 13. However, what is relevant to notice is the fact that an inspection was made on 22.02.2020 and a copy thereof have been brought on record as annexure no.2. The said report clearly indicates that the inspection was made on 22.02.2020 in presence of the petitioner Surya Narain. The record also indicates that at the time of inspection a second class RCC construction was present. 14. There was also a tin-shed and certain pillars which were existing including certain work done up to the foundation level was also found present. It was also indicated that a public school was also being run. However, all these facts were not disclosed in the sale deed and a deliberate attempt was made to conceal the necessary facts which had a direct implication on the existence of stamp duty which is sought to be evaded. 15. The record further indicates that certain objections were filed by the petitioner, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.7. In the entire objections dated 23.07.2021 all that has been stated by the petitioner is that he has paid the appropriate stamp duty. There is not a mention of the fact that the said inspection which was held was not in his presence or that his presence have incorrectly been shown. In his objection, it also does not indicate that the alleged construction upon which the stamp duty is said to have been evaded did not belong to the petitioner or that it was not found on his Plot No.493. 16. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respondent no.3 taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, initiated proceedings under section 47-A and the same came to be decided by means of order dated 04.10.2021 whereby a deficiency of Rs.6,58,750/- and a shortage of Rs.1,31,810/- towards registration charges and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was adjudged against the petitioner. 17. This order came to be assailed by filing the appeal and the appellate court also found that the findings of the respondent no.3 could not be faulted and thus it affirmed the order. 18. In light of the aforesaid, if the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner are noticed, it would be clear that there was never any denial on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged constructions upon which stamp duty has now been charged in pursuance of the impugned order did not exist on the Plot No.493. 19. It has also not been indicated nor a ground taken by the petitioner throughout that he was not present on the date the alleged inspection dated 22.01.2020 was done. Once it has not been disputed nor denied by the petitioner that the constructions were not found on Plot No.493 and merely a feeble plea has been taken to the aforesaid extent in the present writ petition without there being any foundation to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the two Stamp Authorities are bad. In the same vein, once it was never disputed nor denied by the petitioner that he was not present at the site of the inspection and the inspection report fairly states that it was done in presence of the petitioner. 20. At this stage, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity or there is violation of Rule-7 of the U.P. Stamp Rule does not give credence to the submissions, hence they cannot be accepted. 21. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Authorities while passing the order dated 04.10.2021 or in the order dated 15.03.2022, hence for the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that the writ petition stands merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench