Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1112 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19118 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Sunder Singh Respondent :- Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.10.2020 passed under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) as well as revisional order dated 16.08.2021 whereby petitioner’s revision under Section 56(1) of the Act of 1899 has been rejected. Also under challenge is the citation dated 25.01.2021. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings against petitioner was initiated in pursuance of a report dated 20.09.2019 whereater the entire proceedings have been concluded in an ex parte manner placing reliance on spot inspection report dated 25.09.2019. It is submitted that aforesaid spot inspection report dated 25.09.2019 is also an exparte report which was submitted upon an exparte spot inspection by authority concerned without any prior notice to petitioner. Violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997] has been alleged. 4. It is submitted that even the revisional authority has failed to take notice of fact that order passed under section 47-A of the Act of 1899 has placed reliance on inspection report which did not merit any consideration in view of violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered in Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lko. and others reported in 2023 (41) LCD 1777. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of order passed under section 47-A of the Act of 1899 as well as memorandum of Revision will make it evident that the proceedings have been conducted after issuance and service of notice upon petitioner but had thereafter been required to be passed exparte since petitioner deliberately did not participate in the proceedings. It is further submitted that ground of violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has not been taken by petitioner either in Revision or in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that stamp duty was paid on the basis of fact that a portion of the property situate on a thoroughway which was not metalled at all but the spot inspection report indicated that the road was in fact a semi- metalled one due to which enhanced stamp duty was required to be paid. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that submission with regard to violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has not been raised by petitioner either in Revision or in the present writ petition. A new ground cannot be permitted to be taken orally at the stage of writ proceedings. The order also indicates that notice was served upon petitioner prior to passing of impugned order under section 47-A of the Act of 1899. 7. In view of fact that no pleading with regard to violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has been taken by petitioner, the decision referred to by learned counsel for petitioner does not have any applicability at all. 8. In view of aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench