Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18513 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7317 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kumari Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari,D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Anand Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby stamp appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by Collector of District Ambedkar Nagar in a case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of U.P. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2017 had purchased part of Gata No.403 measuring 0.064 hectares and part of plot no.402 measuring 0.016 hectares situated in Village Paikoli, Newadakala, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Sub Registrar in Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, after getting its report prepared forwarded the same before the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ambedkar Nagar alleging that the plots which had been purchased by the petitioner were situate within 50 meters of abadi and there is an endeavor to suppress the stamp duty. It further reported that at the time of execution of sale deed, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty of Rs.17,000/- and a registration fee of Rs.8,500/- whereas there was a deficiency in stamp duty to the extent of Rs.1,25,750/- and a deficiency in payment of registration fee amounting to Rs.11,500/-. 5. Upon receiving the said report, a case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was registered bearing no.764 of 2018. The petitioner contested the said proceedings and specifically raised a ground that neither there was any attempt to suppress the payment of stamp duty coupled with the fact that no notice was issued or served on the petitioner as required in terms of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 as applicable to the State of U.P. 6. It is further urged that merely by taking note of certain isolated construction which was nothing but a room constructed for the purposes of protecting a tubewell by some neighbouring tenure holder, it has wrongly been alleged that land of the petitioner is near abadi and the stamp duty has been incorrectly paid. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the purpose for which the instrument is executed is to be taken at its face value on the date of execution of the said instrument. The land in question in terms of its user is to be seen on the date of the execution of the instrument and its future potentiality has no role to determine the payment of stamp duty. In such circumstances, it is urged that in absence of any notice to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and without there being any cause that the land purchased by the petitioner was put for any other purpose than agriculture, the assumption drawn by the State authorities while passing the impugned orders are bad and the reasonings to reject the objection of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law, hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the amount paid by the petitioner be returned. 8. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that the petitioner while filing the stamp appeal before respondent no.2 had submitted that in case if the penalty is set aside, the petitioner was ready to pay the outstanding sum towards the deficient stamp duty and in such circumstances, now the petitioner is prevented from raising a plea and contesting the proceedings on its own merits. 9. It is urged that the State would have no objections in case if the penalty is set aside but as per the admission of the petitioner herself, she is required to deposit the deficiency of stamp duty and the registration charge. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid, the petition deserves dismissal. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. At the outset, it may be noticed that a specific query was put to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether any notice in terms of Rule 7(3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 was served on the petitioner and whether the alleged inspection said to have been made, was in the presence of the petitioner. It could not be indicated that any notice was issued to the petitioner or that was served on her. It will be safe to state that in absence of any notice, the inspection report appears to be insignificant. The question of inspection and that too in presence of the parties concerned, is not an empty formality rather in order to give credence to the action of the State by which it seeks to recover stamp duty, must be followed in its letter and spirit in terms of the provisions contained in the Stamp Act as well as the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 as applicable in the State of U.P. 12. Once there is no sufficient material on record to substantiate that the alleged inspection had any legal sanctity. Apart from the said report, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any attempt on the part of the petitioner to suppress the payment of stamp duty. It will be further relevant to mention that in the entire instrument, it has not been stated that the petitioner is purchasing the property for any other purpose except agriculture. A copy of the sale deed has been placed on record as Annexure No.4 and it clearly indicates that the nature of the land is agriculture. The boundaries as indicated in the said sale deed relating to the part of the property which has been purchased by the petitioner, is bounded by the fields of Munna Lal and others on the northern side, fields of Avnish Kumar and others on the eastern side, fields of Devi Prasad on the southern side and the fields of Ram Baran on the western side. 13. This fact could not be disputed that on all the sides, there are fields of other tenure holders. In such circumstances, to state that the property purchased by the petitioner is near an abadi, does not give credence. To further state that near the disputed land in question, there are certain constructions, apparently they do not belong to the petitioner and it is not the case of the State respondent that any activity other than the agriculture is going on in the land which has been purchased by the petitioner. 14. Apparently, any other tenure holder who may be having the field or plot contiguous to the land of the petitioner even if may raise certain constructions or utilise his tenure holding for any purpose other than agriculture, the same cannot be used as ground to penalise the present petitioner to charge her with higher stamp duty. 15. It is now well settled that the provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 are mandatory in nature. If a notice was sent as alleged in the instant case, then the same should have been served on the petitioner and having failed to substantiate the same, the inspection report cannot be relied upon. It is also equally settled that the stamp duty is levied on the nature of the land which is the subject matter of the instrument on the give date when the said deed is executed and its character or purpose is not lost on account of any non agricultural activity in the tenure of some other holder or in the vicinity. 16. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed any fact which would affect the payment of stamp duty or that the land of the petitioner which otherwise is for agriculture purpose is being utilised for any other purpose on the date of execution of the sale deed and for the said reason, imposing deficiency in the stamp duty is per se bad. 17. As far as submissions made by learned Standing Counsel regarding the fact that the petitioner had stated before the appellate authority that she is ready to pay the stamp duty provided the penalty is set aside. This submission does not impress this Court inasmuch as the admission of the petitioner cannot be the basis of charging the stamp duty higher than the prescribed rate unless there has been any infraction of any regularisation or provision which in due course of law, would attract a higher stamp duty than what has been paid. Needless to say that the Stamp Act is a taxing statute and is fiscal in nature and it is to be strictly construed. It is for the State to establish that the stamp duty which has been paid by the petitioner is deficient. In case if the deficiency is sought to be projected on the basis of the inspection report and as already stated above, the same is in violation and non compliance of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, hence the same cannot come to the aid of the State. 18. In absence of any cogent material, the averments of state that there are certain constructions in the vicinity also do not give any right to the State to impose higher stamp duty than which has been already paid. It would not be out of place to mention here that there was no justification for the State authorities to have imposed any penalty on the petitioner specially when there was no suppression of any fact which could impact the incidence of payment of stamp duty nor there has been any effort made by the petitioner to mention any incorrect facts in the sale deed itself. Thus, the imposition of penalty is also bad. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned orders are per se bad and cannot be sustained. 20. Accordingly, the writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 23.12.2022 passed by respondent no.3. The deposit made by the petitioner, if any, either before the Commissioner or before this Court, shall be released in favour of the petitioner, expeditiously within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. 21. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench