Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128936 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5207 of 2025 Petitioner :- K T L Pvt Ltd Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Parth Goswami,Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Parth Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatvide registered sale deed dated 11.07.2023, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty and thereafter, on 15.09.2023, the petitioner applied for mutation, which was allowed. He further submits that thereafter, vide order dated 16.11.2023, the land in question was declared as non-agricultural land under section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted map for sanction of workshop and dealership outlet of Maruti Suzuki, which was approved. He further submits that a notice was issued and proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner treating the land to be commercial land on the basis of ex parte reports dated 31.10.2023, to which the petitioner filed a detailed objection. The respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dated 24.12.2024, imposed deficiency of stamp duty, together with penalty and interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of some survey conducted on 31.08.2022 in the proceedings against the vendee of the petitioner, from whom the land in question was purchased by the petitioner. He further submits that the said report was not accepted by the then Additional District Magistrate and vide order dated 30.06.2023, an order was passed in its favour by treating theland as agricultural land. He further submits that for the first time, these facts came to the notice of the petitioner, to which the petitioner was never put to any notice. He further submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that on the date of execution of the sale deed, the land in question was agricultural land and thereafter, the same was declared as non-agricultural land. He further submits that the stamp duty has to be determined on the date of execution of the sale deed and subsequent user of the land does not affect the chargeability of the instruction. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed relying on an ex parte report dated 31.08.2022 and the relied upon documents were never supplied to the petitioner. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The record shows that at the time of purchase of the land in question, the same was recorded as an agricultural land and after paying requisite stamp duty as per the prevailing rate, the land was purchased, but on the basis of the report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. Perusal of the impugned order refers the one survey report dated 31.08.2022, which is much prior to the date of execution of the land in question. The record further shows that the petitioner was never put to any notice about the said report, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner about the relied upon report dated 31.08.2022. Once the petitioner was never put to any notice, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter requires reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector (Stamp), Kanpur Dehat, i.e., the respondent no. 2, with a direction to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner will have 21 days' time for submitting reply/objection thereto. After receipt of the reply/objection, the respondent no. 2 shall decide the case on merit within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 2. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad