A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2022 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard, Sri. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing the State/respondents. 2. The instant writ petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying the following two primary and distinct reliefs: "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order, Dated- 19.04.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 4 in Computer Case No. C202104000001469 and Order Dated-16.08.2021 passed by the opposite party no. 5 in Computer Case No. D202104120001455 including the Site Inspection Report passed by the Opposite Party No.6. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Divine Heart Hospital And Research Centre Pvt.Ltd. Thru.Managing Director Dr.Ashok Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Stamp And Registration) Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner through the Deposited Slip, Dated-25.03.2022 & 02.06.2022, with interest." 3. The factual matrix in brief shorn of unnecessary details, is that the petitioner purchased a parcel of agricultural land, consisting of Gata Nos. 459, 482, 483 and 484, ad-measuring area 1.4042 hectares, situated in Gram- Pyarepur Saraiya, Pargana-Pratapganj, Tehsil Nawabganj, District- Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh. This purchase was legally formalised through a registered Sale-Deed dated 19.11.2020, registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Sadar, Barabanki, for declared consideration of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- (Rs. Two crores and One Lakh only). 4. From the submitted pleadings and records, it is evident that the total valuation of the purchased land determined as per the prevailing government 'circle rate' at the time of registration stood at Rs.1,76,50,000/- (Rs. One Crore Seventy Six Lakh and Fifty Thousand only). Since the actual sale consideration was higher than the prescribed 'circle rate', the petitioner paid the requisite stamp duty, calculated on the higher amount of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- (Rs. Two crores and One Lac only) amounting to Rs. 10,05,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh and Five Thousand only). 5. After execution of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 19.11.2020, the petitioner only few months later approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ayodhya, for the conversion of the land-use from 'agricultural' to non-agricultural' in the manner as provided under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ayodhya vide order dated 30.03.2021 allowed the petitioner's application, thereby the nature of the land-use was altered as 'non-agricultural'. WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 2 6. Subsequent, to the aforesaid change, acting on a Reference the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5), in the proceeding under section 47A read with section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, issued notice dated 07.08.2021 to the petitioner, whereby an additional Stamp-Duty of Rs. 6,17,150/- (Rs. Six Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) and Registration Fee of Rs. 1,23,430/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty only) was demanded. The foundation of the demanded deficient stamp-duty and the registration fee was the inspection Report dated 03.07.2021 submitted by Additional Officer (Ist.) Barabanki (Opposite party no.6), whereby the valuation of transferred property was evaluated as Rs. 3,24,43,000/- (Rs., Three Crore Twenty-Four Lacs, and Forty-Three Thousand only) treating it as non-agricultural / Industrial land. As a ready reference the Notice dated 07.08.2021 is reproduced as under: "नोिटस ्व० वाद संćया-D202104120001455 अęतगăत धारा 47ए / 33 ĥटाĞप अिध० िनयत तारीख पेशीः 20-08-2021 भूिम िĥथत Ŏाम-Ěयारेपुर सरैया परंगना- Šतापगंज तहसील- नवाबगंज िजला- बाराबंकी लेखपś संćया-16189/2021 मािलयत / िबकी ɴ0 2,01,00,000.00 सरकार बनाम िडवाईन हाटă हािĥपटल एवं िरसचă सेęटर Šा० िल० DZारा मैनेिजग डायरेĆटर डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव 1- िडवाईन हाटă हािĥपटल एवं िरसचă सेęटर Šा० िल० DZारा मैनेिजग डायरेĆटर डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव पुś ĥव० मथुरा Šसाद व एिčकके िटव डायरेĆटर ũीमती आभा ũीवाĥतव पĕनी डा० WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 3 अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव िनवासीगण म० नं० 2/24 िवनीत खĔड गोमतीनगर शहर लखनऊ मो० नं0 979285553 तहसीलदार / उपिनबęधक / उपिजलािधकारी / सहायक महािनरीWक िनबęधन / अपर िजलािधकारी/कलेĆटर ĥटाĞप िजलािधकारी महोदय बाराबंकी DZारा िकये गये ĥथलीय िनरीWण आćया िदनांक 20.07.2021 के अनुसार आप DZारा ्वय की गयी भूिम मȅ ɴपये 6,17,150-00 की कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक व ɴ0 1,23,430-00 कमी िनबęधन शुġक पायी गयी। अतः कु ल कमी 7,40,580-00 ɴपये पायी गयी है। आप िनयत ितिथ को ęयायालय अपर िजलािधकारी/ कलेĆटर ĥटाĞप बाराबंकी के समW Šातः 10:30 बजे उपिĥथत होकर अपना साĨय आिद जो भी Šĥतुत करना चाहे, Šĥतुत कर दȅ। तदनुसार आपके िवɴǪ उपरोǘानुसार कमी ĥटाĞप व िनबęधन शुġक तथा (4) चार गुना अथăदĔड आरोिपत िकया जायेगा। िवलेख िनĤपादन ितिथ से 1.5 Šितशत का मािसक साधारण Ĝयाज भी कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक पर कमी जमा करने के माह तक देय होगा। िनयत ितिथ पर उपिĥथत न होने पर यह समझा जायेगा िक आपको इस सĞबęध मȅ कु छ नहȂ कहना हȈ। तėनुसार आपके िवɴǪ एकपWीय कायăवाही कर दी जायेगी िजसके िलए आप ĥवयं उǥरदायी हȋगे। िदनांक 07.08.2021 अपर िजलािधकारी/ कलेĆटर ĥटाĞप बाराबंकी।" 7. In response to the above-mentioned Notice dated 07.08.2021 wherein 20.08.2021 was indicated as date fixed in the case, the Petitioner appeared before the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5) on 16.08.2021 and instead of submitting any objection / reply or contesting the concerned inspection report; preferred to submit an application inter-alia admitting the deficiencies as imposed in the aforesaid notice dated 07.08.2021. 8. By means of the aforesaid Application submitted on 16.08.2021 the Petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiencies in stamp-duty and registration-fee, attributing it to lack of legal knowledge and expressed its willingness to deposit the same and requested waiver of any penalty imposed, expressly stating that it did not wish to engage in litigation regarding the concerned stamp-duty matter. The contents of the said WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 4 Application dated 16.08.2021 is reproduced herein below, for a better appreciation of the case: "ęयायालय अपर िजलािधकारी / कलेĆटर ĥटाĞप बाराबंकी। क० वाद संćया-D202104120001455 अęतăगत धारा-47ए / 33 ĥटाĞप अिध० भूिम िĥथत Ŏाम-Ěयारेपुर सरैया परगना- Šतापगंज तहसील- नवाबगंज िजला- बाराबंकी लेखपś संćया-16189/2021 मािलयत / िबकी ɴ0 2,01,00,000.00 सरकार बनाम िडवाईन हाटă हािĥपटल एवं िरसचăसेęटर Šा० िल० DZारा मैनेिजग डायरेĆटर डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव िवषयः- Šाथăना पś वाĥते जमा कराये जाने कमी ĥटाĞप एवं वाद िनĥतािरत िकये जाने के सĞबęध मȅ। महोदय, सिवनय िनवेदन है िक Šाथȃ DZारा कथ की गई भूिम का उपिजलािधकारी व िजलािधकारी महोदय बाराबंकी DZारा िकये गये ĥथलीय िनरीWण आćया िदनांक 03.07.2021 के अनुसार आप DZारा ्वय की गयी भूिम मȅ ɴपये 6,17,150- 00 की कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक व ɴ० 1,23,430-00 कमी िनबęधन शुġक पायी गयी। अतः कु ल कमी 7,40,580-00 ɴपये पायी गयी है। जो Šाथȃ से िविधक जानकारी के अभाव मȅ कमी ĥटाĞप ɷई है। िजसे Šाथȃ ĥवेċछा से जमा करना चाहता है मुकदमा लíना नही चाहता है। ũीमान जी से सादर अनुरोध है िक Šाथȃ उपरोǘ ĥटाĞपवाद मȅ अथăदĔड माफ िकये जाने की कृ पा करते ɷए कमी ĥटाĞप मय Dzाज जमा कराये जाने हेतु सहानुभूितपूवăक िवचार करते ɷए आदेश पिरत िकये जाने एवं वाद िनĥतारण कराये जाने की कृ पा करȅ ũीमान जी आप की महान दया होगी। िदनांक Šाथȃ डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव मैनेिजग डायरेĆटर िडवाईन हाटă हािĥपटल एवं िरसचă सेęटर Šा० िल० िनवासी गण म० नं० 2/24 िवनीत खĔड गोमतीनगर शहर लखनऊ। WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 5 मो० नं0 979285553" 9. On receipt of the aforesaid Application, submitted on behalf of the petitioner in response to the notice dated 07.08.2021; the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5) relying upon the written admission and willingness to deposit the deficient amount, passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit the deficient stamp duty and registration fee. For ready reference, the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow: "Šĥतुत वाद अितिरǘ अिधकारी Šथम की आćया िदनांक 03- 07-2021 के आधार पर योिजत ɷआ। आćया मȅ उġलेख िकया गया िक िव्वय िवलेख सं० 16189/2020 DZारा अęतिरत सĞपिǥ िĥथत Ŏाम Ěयारेपुर सरैया परगना Šतापगंज तहसील नवाबगंज िजला बाराबंकी की गाटा सं0 459, 42, 483, 484, रĆबा 1.4042 हे० के 0 से 100 मीटर की िśčया मȅ आवासीय गितिवधयां िवǯमान होना अंिकत करते ɷए कृ िष भूिम की िनधाăिरत दर से मूġयांिकत मािलयत 1,76,45,000- 00 से अिधक िब्वी 2,01,00,000-00 पर ĥटाĞप शुġक ɴ० 10,05,000-00 अदा कर िव्वे ता िसलीकान फामă DZारा पाटăनर सैğयद जावेद अहमद पुś ĥव० िसǩीक अहमद िनवासी शहर व परगना व तहसील नवाबगंज िजला बाराबंकी आिद DZारा िडवाईन हाटă हािĥपटल एवं िरसचă सेęटर Šा० िल० DZारा मैनेिजग डायरेĆटर डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव पुś ĥव० मथुरा Šसाद व एिजिĆयूिटव डायरेĆटर ũीमती आभा ũीवाĥतव पनी डा० अशोक कु मार ũीवाĥतव िनवासी म० न० 2/24 िवनीतखĔड, गोमतीनगर शहर लखनऊ ्वे ता के पW मȅ िव्वय िकया गया है। अितिरिǘ अिधकारी Šथम DZारा िकये गये ĥथलीय िनरीWण मȈ मौके पर पाया गया िक गाटा सं० 459 लखनऊ-फै जाबाद मागă के िकनारे िĥथत पाया गया है। जो पूणăतयः अकृ षक भूिम है तथा शेष गाटा कृ िषक भूिम है। अतः िजलािधकारी बाराबंकी DZारा जारी मूġयांकन सूची के अनुसार गाटा सं०-459 रĆबा 0.379हे० यानी 3790 वगăमीटर मȅ से 1000-00 वगăमीटर तक की मािलयत िनधाăिरत दर 11,000.00 Šितवगăमीटर की दर से ɴ0 1,10,00,000-00 तथा शेष रĆबा 2790 वगăमीटर की मािलयत िनधाăिरत दर ɴ० 11,000-00 Šितवगăमीटर मȅ 30 Šितशत कम करते ɷए दर 7,700-00 Šितवगăमीटर, से 2,14,83,000-00 तथा गाटा WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 6 सं० 482 रĆबा 0.7722 हे० मȅ से 0.025 हे० यानी 250 वगăमीटर तक की मािलयत 3400-00 Šितवगăमीटर से ɴ० 8,50,000-00 तथा शेष रकबा 0.7472 हे० की मािलयत िनधाăिरत दर 85,00,000-00. Šितहे० से ɴ0 63,52,000.00 गाटा सं० 483 व 484 िव्वीत रĆबा 0.253 हे० मȅ से 0.025हे0 की यानी 250 वगăमीटर तक की मािलयत 3400-00 Šितवगăमीटर से 8,50,000-00 से ɴ० 8,50,000.00 तथा शेष रकबा 0.228 हे० की मािलयत िनधाăिरत दर 85,00,000-00 Šितहे० से तथा आबादी व सíक संलĈन होने के कारण 50 Šितशत वृिǪ सिहत मािलयत ɴ0 29,07,600-00 होती है। इस Šकार अęतिरत सĞपिǥ की कु ल मािलयत 3,24,43,000-00 होती हȈ। िजसपर िनयमानुसार 16,22,150-00 का ĥटाĞप शुġक व ɴ० 3,24,430-00 का िनबęधन शुġक देय होता है। जबिक ्वे ता DZारा लेखपś मȅ िव्वय मूġय 2,01,00,000-00 पर ɴ0 10,05,000-00 का ĥटाĞप, शुġक व ɴ0 2,01,000-00 का िनबęधन शुġक अदा िकया गया है। इस Šकार Šģनगत लेखपś मȅ पर ɴ0 6,17,150-00 के ĥटाĞप शुġक व ɴ0 1,23,430- 00 के िनबęधन शुġक कम अदा है। िजसे वसूल िकये जाने हेतु वाद दजă कर िनयमानुसार िनĥतारण हेतु इस ęयायालय को Šेिषत िकया गया। िवपWी को नोिटस भेजी गई, िवपWी/्वे ता DZारा एक Šाथăना पś इस आशय का Šĥतुत िकया गया, िक Šाथȃ/ ्वे ता के िवलेख मȅ पायी गयी कमी ĥटाĞप ĥवेċछा से जमा करना चाहता है, मुकदमा लíना नहȂ चाहता है। अęत मȅ ĥटाĞप शुġक जमा कराये जाने तथा ĥटाĞप वाद िनĥतािरत िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया। चूंिक िवपWी/्वे ता की ओर ने Šाथăना-पś Šĥतुत करके कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक को जमा करने की अपनी सहमित Šदान कर दी गई है। ऐसी िĥथित मȅ अितिरǘ अिधकारी Šथम की आćया िदनांक 03-07-2021 की पुिǸ की जाती है। आदेश अतः िवपWी से लेखपś सं० 16189/2020 पर Šकाश मȅ आई कमी, ĥटाĞप शुġक ɴ0 6,17,150-00-00 का ĥटाĞप शुġक व ɴ0 1,23,430-00 कमी िनबęधन शुġक तथा अथăदĔड ɴ दो हजार माś, ɳ. 2000/- जमाकोष करायी जाये। िवलेख िनĤपादन के िदनांक 19-11-2020 से कमी जमा होने की ितिथ तक कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक पर 1.5 Šितशत Šितमाह का साधारण Ĝयाज भी देय होगा। िवपWी/्वे ताजन से उपरोǘानुसार सĞपूणă धनरािश जमाकोष करायी जाये। पśावली आवशषăक कायăवाही के उपराęत यथािनयम संिचत अिभलेखागार हो। " WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 7 10. It would not be out of place to note that the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, deposited the amounts vide challans dated 25.03.2022 and 02.06.2022. 11. Although the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 was passed on the basis of the categorical admission and request made in the aforesaid application but the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the learned Deputy Commissioner Stamp (opposite party No. 4); challenging the said order dated 16.08.2021, mainly on the ground that impugned order dated 16.08.2021 was passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (opposite party no. 5), solely on the basis of the petitioner's application without verifying the correctness of the aforementioned Report dated 03.07.2021. 12. The aforesaid Appeal under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 having Case No. 1469 of 2021 came to be dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner vide impugned order dated 19.04.2022. While dismissing the said Appeal, the learned Appellate Court observed that although the petitioner had full opportunity to defend its case by filing objections / evidence and also to present the pleas in a coherent argument before the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (opposite party no. 5) but instead of defending its case by filing any reply / objection to the notice dated 07.08.2021 the petitioner preferred to submit the application dated 16.08.2021 whereby voluntarily admitted the imposed deficiencies in stamp-duty and registration-fee and expressed its willingness to deposit the same and clearly stated that he did not wish to engage in litigation regarding the concerned stamp-duty matter. The Appellate Court further observed that the factual controversy and the legal WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 8 issues raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage were never raised before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, rather the petitioner voluntarily admitted the imposed deficiencies and wished not to contest the case on the subject matter, therefore, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki committed no illegality in passing the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the admission of petitioner thus, found no justification to interfere in the said order dated 16.08.2021. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.04.2022 is extracted hereinbelow: "अवर ęयायालय DZारा वाद िवचारण के दौरान ęयाियक Šि्वया का पालन करते ɷए िवपWी को नोिटस जारी की गयी और िवपWी DZारा नोिटस की Šसूचना पर िदनांक 16.08.2021 को Šाथăना-पś Šĥतुत कर कमी ĥटाĞपशुġक ɴ0 6,17,150/-, कमी िनबęधन शुġक ɴ० 1,23,430/- तथा िनयमानुसार Ĝयाज जमा कराये जाने की Šाथăना की गयी। Šाथăना- पś मȅ अथăदĔड माफ िकये जाने की भी Šाथăना की गयी। अवर ęयायालय DZारा िवपWी की Šाथăना को ĥवीकार करते ɷए आदेश िदनांक 16.08.2021 पािरत िकया गया और अथăदĔड माś ɴ0 2,000/- आरोिपत िकया गया जो िक नाम माś का है और माफ िकये जाने के समान है। अवर ęयायालय मȅ वाद िवचारण के दौरान िवपWी के पास अपने वाद का Šितवाद करने, आपिǥ/साĨय Šĥतुत करने तथा तकă पूणă बहस मȅ अपने तĖय समेिकत ɴप से Šĥतुत करने का अवसर उपलĜध था, परęतु िवपWी DZारा अवर ęयायालय मȅ वाद का Šितवाद करने के ĥथान पर ĥथल िनरीWण आćया मȅ इंिगत कमी ĥटाĞपशुġक तथा कमी िनबęधन शुġक मय Ĝयाज के जमा िकये जाने हेतु सहमित ĥवɴप Šाथăना-पś Šĥतुत िकया गया। इस ęयायालय मȅ अपीलाथȃ DZारा अवर ęयायालय के समW Šाथăना-पś िदनांक 16.08.2021 Šĥतुत िकया जाना ĥवीकार िकया गया है। अपील एवं बहस मȅ अपीलाथȃ DZारा िजन िबęɭɛ को उठाया गया है, अवर ęयायालय DZारा उन िबęɭɛ पर िवचारण उसी िĥथित मȅ िकया जाना सĞभव था जबिक अपीलकताă उन िबęɭɛ को Šितवाद के ɴप मȅ अवर ęयायालय के समW Šĥतुत करता। अपीलीय ęयायालय के समW उन िबęɭɛ को उठाने का कोई औिचĕय Šतीत नहȂ होता है, जबिक अवर ęयायालय DZारा वाद का िनĥतारण िवपWी के Šाथăना-पś के आधार पर िकया गया है। अपीलकताă के िवDZान अिधवǘा ऐसा कोई युिǘसंगत तकă Šĥतुत नहȂ WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 9 कर सके िजससे Šĥतुत Šकरण मȅ अवर ęयायालय DZारा पािरत िनणăय मȅ हĥतWेप का कोई आधार बनता हो। उपरोǘ िववेचना के आधार पर मै इस िनĤकाषă पर पɷँचा ɸँ िक अवर ęयायालय DZारा Šĥतुत Šकरण मȅ अęतिरत सĞपिǥ का समुिचत बाजार मूġय िनधाăरण करते ɷए लेखपś मȅ कमी ĥटाĞप शुġक का आरोपण िविध के अनुसार िकया गया है। अतः अवर ęयायालय के िनणăय मȅ िकसी भी Šकार का हĥतWेप िकये जाने का कोई औिचĕय नहȂ है। अवर ęयायालय के आदेश िदनांक 16.08.2021 की पुिǸ की जाती है। आदेश उपरोǘ िववेचना के ्वम मȅ अवर ęयायालय के आदेश िदनांक 16.08.2021 मȅ िकसी भी Šकार के हĥतWेप का औिचĕय नहȂ पाया जाता है। अतः अपीलकताă की अपील बलहीन होने के कारण िनरĥत की जाती है। अवर ęयायालय की पśावली आदेश की की Šित के साथ वापस भेजी जाय। बाद आवģयक कायăवाही इस ęयायालय की पśावली संिचत अिभलेखागार की जाए।" 13. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (opposite party no. 5) exercising its power under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 passed the impugned Order dated 16.08.2021without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His submission is that as per the Notice dated 07.08.2021 the scheduled date for the submission of the reply / evidence and for the appearance of the petitioner before the opposite party no. 5 was 20.08.2021, but without waiting for the due date the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, merely on the basis of an application, without appreciating the case on its own merit, passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2021, even four(4) days prior to the date fixed in the matter. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the opposite party nos. 4 & 5 have totally failed to decide the matter on its WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 10 merits and passed the impugned orders under the so-called consent given by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner orally withdrew the said consent on the same day i.e. 16.08.2021 and prayed for time to file reply on 20.08.2021 but the opposite party no.5 did not accept the said oral request made by the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of the deficiencies determined in the report dated 03.07.2021 prepared by the Additional Officer (Ist), Barabanki (opposite party no.6) by illegally treating the land as non-agricultural / industrial. He stated that the petitioner paid stamp-duty upon the sale value of Rs. 2,01,00,000/-, accordingly the stamp duty of Rs. 10,05,000/- and registration fee of Rs. 2,01,000/- were paid, but the Additional Officer-Ist Barabanki, assessed the deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 6,17,150/- and the registration fee of Rs. 1,23,430/- without applying his mind and in the most illegal, wrongful, casual and arbitrary manner. 16. Assailing the inspection report dated 03.07.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Officer-Ist, Barabanki has wrongly assessed the valuation of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 in defiance of the Government Order dated 01.08.2017 in respect of the valuation of the land situated at Barabanki-Faizabad (Ayodhya) Road. It is further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the execution of the sale deed i.e. on 19.11.2020, all portion of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 purchased by the petitioner having total area of 1.4042 hectares were the agricultural lands and the land-use was converted from the 'agricultural' to the 'non-agricultural' only on 03.03.2021 that goes to show that the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 is absolutely an incorrect WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 11 report but the opposite party nos. 4 & 5 have failed to notice any fault in the said report and passed the impugned orders dated 16.08.2021 & 19.04.2022. 17. On the other side, learned counsels appearing on behalf of State- respondents have vehemently opposed the instant writ petition. Their submission is that petitioner on the receipt of the aforesaid notice dated 07.08.2021, voluntarily appeared on 16.08.2021 before the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, perused the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 and other documents on record, and thereafter voluntarily submitted the application dated 16.08.2021 in response to the aforesaid Notice dated 07.08.2021 whereby an additional Stamp-Duty of Rs. 6,17,150/- (Rs. Six Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) and the Registration Fee of Rs. 1,23,430/- (Rs. One Lac, Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) was demanded. In the said application the petitioner unequivocally admitted the existence of deficiency in stamp duty, citing 'lack of knowledge' as the cause and in clear terms expressed his willingness to deposit the same and requested waiver of penalty; further, the petitioner specifically stated that he did not wish to contest the said stamp duty case and prayed for the disposal of the same. 18. It is contented on behalf of the State-respondents that the basis of the demand under Notice dated 07.08.2021 regarding the deficiency in stamp- duty and the registration fee is the inspection Report dated 03.07.2021 submitted by the Opposite party no.6, whereby the valuation of transferred property was evaluated as Rs. 3,24,43,000/- (Rs., Three Crore Twenty Four Lacs, and Forty-Three Thousand only) treating it as non- agricultural/Industrial land. The petitioner, instead of disputing the said report dated 03.07.2021; voluntarily admitted the noticed deficiency and WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 12 expressed its willingness to deposit the same. It was in view of an explicit reluctance of the petitioner to contest the case and the voluntary admission of the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp-duty and the interest, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki passed the order dated 16.08.2021. 19. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State- respondents that during the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, the petitioner had the opportunity to defend his case and to present objection / evidence. However, instead of defending the case, the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiency and get the waiver of imposed penalty amounting to four (4) times of the deficient amount; having taken the benefit of his own admission, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the proceedings. 20. Defending the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp (opposite party No. 4); the learned counsels for the State-respondents have submitted that the same is a well-reasoned order whereby the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya being the Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the factual controversy and the legal issues raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage were never raised before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, rather the petitioner voluntarily admitted the imposed deficiencies and wished not to contest the case on the subject matter and as such, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki committed no illegality in passing the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the admission of the petitioner. 21. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 13 that as per the inspection report, the subject matter of instrument was found to be completely non-agricultural plot of land, situated on the side of Gata No. 459 Lucknow-Faizabad Road. Further, within a short span of time after the registration of the sale-deed dated 19.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner the land-use of the same was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural under section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thus, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the entries in the revenue records to evade stamp- duty. In support of his case, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Agra Versus Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Allahabad and others reported in 2014 (124) R.D. 316 wherein it was held that, "14. For the purpose of determining market value, it is not bare entry in revenue record, which is conclusive but entire state of affairs, as were available on the date of execution of sale deed, have to be looked into. … 15. It is true that size of land is a relevant factor for determining its value but in the present case, nothing otherwise has been shown by petitioner, either before authorities below or before this Court to show that true market value of property in question could have been lower than what was stated in the sale deed dated 29.8.2007, which is not a much subsequent document but was executed within a few days after the sale deed in question." 22. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the relevant materials available on record, pleadings and impugned orders. 23. From the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 14 the key issue that emerges for consideration, being decisive for the adjudication of the core controversy involved in the present writ petition, is as to whether the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, was required to delve into the merits of the case, even without there being any contest either on the facts or law. 24. From the pleadings available on record it is evident that the facts regarding submission of the application by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on 16.08.2021 is undisputed, whereby the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiencies, attributing it to 'lack of legal knowledge' and expressed its willingness to deposit the amount demanded towards the deficiencies in stamp-duty and registration fee along with interest and requested waiver of penalty. Further, the petitioner by means of the said application very categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation with regard to the concerned stamp-duty matter. Although, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the consent was orally withdrawn by the petitioner on the same day, but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the said argument. 25. The petitioner is not disputing the submission of the said application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on 16.08.2021, whereby the petitioner on its own unequivocally admitted the noticed deficiencies to avoid penalty and had consciously chosen not to contest the proceedings before the competent authority and voluntarily wished to deposit the deficient stamp duty based on the inspection report dated 03.07.2021. There is also nothing on record to indicate any coercion, duress or undue influence in the submission of the said application. WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 15 26. The petitioner even in the Appeal having Case No. 1469 of 2021, preferred under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the order dated 16.08.2021, did not raise the plea regarding the alleged withdrawal of his aforesaid application although the same was the basis of the passing of the order under challenge in the said appeal, what to say of challenge there is not even a whisper to that effect. From the perusal of the memo of the aforesaid appeal and also the copy of written arguments submitted before the learned Appellate Court of Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, as contained in annexures no.9 & 10 to this writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner did not raise the said plea rather pressed the appeal on various other grounds dealing with the merits of the case. 27. It is trite in law that admissions, if clear, are by far the best proof of facts admitted. Admissions in pleading or judicial admission, if admissible, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of a case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions is fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. However, an admission, once made, before the Court of law can very well be clarified or explained in the prescribed manner and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceeding. The Court can very well pass an order on the basis of an undisputed admission of a party in accordance with law It is well settled that where admissions of facts and law have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court at any stage of the proceeding either on the application of a party or on its own motion without waiting for the determination of other questions, may make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. In such a case, the party making the said WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 16 admission cannot be allowed to challenge the said order on the basis that the party, after the order has been passed, wished to withdraw the said admission. Allowing such challenges will create a cascading effect of non- ending litigation for a single cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on its stare decisis, observed in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria versus Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others; reported in 2015 (10) SCC 203 that a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings. 28. Further, with regard to withdrawal or resiling from an admission made by a party during the course of proceedings in a particular case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gautam Sarup versus Leela Jetly and others; reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85, after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava versus Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another; reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594, and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. versus Ladha Ram & Co. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 and several other decisions dealing with the amendment on withdrawal of admissions in the pleadings; held that, "28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other." 29. From the material available on record, this Court finds that in response to the notice dated 07.08.2021, the petitioner appeared before the Additional WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 17 District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899, and voluntarily submitted an application on the same day i.e. 16.08.2021, wherein it admitted the noticed liabilities and expressed willingness to deposit the same and requested for waiver of the penalty. It is also explicit from the perusal of the application dated 16.08.2021 that the petitioner categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation concerning the said stamp-duty matter and requested for disposal of the matter accordingly. Therefore, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki has very rightly decided the matter promptly in the light of the written admission and the request made by the petitioner in the said application. Insofar as the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is concerned, the same being a reasoned order passed after taking into consideration the fact that the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki being the adjudicatory authority of first instance, passed the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the petitioner's own admissions and the prayer made therein; cannot be faulted also in the light of the settled preposition of law that 'as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted'. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and others versus Union of India and others; reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2064, has been pleased to hold that no relief can be granted on a case not founded in the pleadings. The Court cannot entertain an entirely new case at the appellate stage at the behest of either party and is strictly confined to adjudicate the issues arising from the suit as framed by the pleadings of the parties. Thus, the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 18 learned Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5) and the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya (opposite party No. 4) do not necessitate any interfere by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. November 3, 2025 Virendra WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 19 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench