Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46765 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003191 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Khanna Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Revenue Deptt.Civil Sectt.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kr. Singh Chauhan,Nisha Srivastava,Pankaj Katiyar,Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Order on I.A. No.8 of 2025 1. The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the recall application. 2. The cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. 3. The delay in filing the recall application is condoned. Order on I.A. No.9 of 2025 4. The instant application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 07.02.2020. 5. The cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. 6. The order dated 07.02.2020 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original file and number. Order on Main Petition 7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 8. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.11.2012 whereby, the order dated 24.12.2008 assessing the deficiency of the stamp duty was affirmed in the appeal and the appeal came to be dismissed. 9. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased a property through a sale deed no.9729/3. Subsequently, an inspection was carried out on 04.08.2023 in which it was found that instead of two story, the property in question is three story building. Based upon the said, the property was reassessed for assessing the stamp duty. 10. The Contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had alleged before the appellate authority that the third floor was constructed after the purchase of the property, which is also evident from the notice given to the petitioner by the Development Authority. It was also stated that the order impugned was an ex-parte order. The appellate court did not accept either of the contentions of the petitioner and proceeded to dismissed the appeal. 11. Considering the fact that none of the court have considered the specific defence of the petitioner that the property was being constructed subsequent to the date of purchase, the order impugned dated 24.12.2008 and the impugned order dated 02.11.2012 are quashed. The petition is allowed. 12. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench