Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26432 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12984 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bharat Agriindustries, Llp Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj as well as the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the District Collector. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second round of litigation. He further submits that an agricultural land was purchased by the petitioner through sale deed dated 21.10.2014 after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of an ex-parte report being prepared pursuant to a complaint being made by one Basant Yadav to which a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed his objection/reply thereto, but without considering the said objection, an order dated 25.09.2017 was passed, but being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ-C No. 4981 of 2018 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20.2.2018 and the matter was remanded with a direction that order to be passed after holding spot inspection of the property in question with due notice to the petitioner. 4. He further submits that on the spot inspection conducted on 11.05.2018, standing crops were found and the land was treated as agricultural land and thereafter, again on 08.08.2018, another spot inspection was made wherein it was found that the plot in question is adjacent to Plot No.714 wherein exists a factory and there exists an old structure of a tin-shed in the west part thereof. In pursuance of the said report, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which objection was filed by him, specifically stating therein that the land in question was being used as an agricultural land and further, in the adjacent land, there alleged to be an industrial unit to which a certificate has been taken from District Industries Centre, Fatehpur wherein it has specifically been stated that on the plot No. 714 no industrial activities were being undertaken. 5. He further submits that the said fact was brought to the notice of the court below, however, no weightage has been given to the same at any stage. 6. He further submits that in the instant writ petition, specific pleadings have been made in para nos.25 & 26, which have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders. 8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to two surveys being conducted; first is on 11.05.2018, which shows that the land in question is an agricultural land and standing crop were found in the report prepared thereof and the land was treated to be used as agricultural land and in the another survey conducted on 08.08.2018 wherein the land in question was distinguished as surrounded by boundary wall and in the west part thereof, a factory as well as an old tin- shed was found, the said report has been annexed as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition and a map was also drawn, which is annexed at page No.93 to this writ petition. 10. On the study of the said map, it shows that the plot adjacent to the land is vacant, however, one tin-shed on the other side has been shown. However, this does not show that any industrial activity were being undertaken over the adjacent plot to the plot in question. 11. Further, the certificate issued by District Industrial Centre itself shows that on the plot adjacent i.e. Plot No. 714, no industrial activities were being run. The said fact was brought to the notice of the authorities, but no weightage has been given to it. 12. The record shows that even in the writ petition, specific pleadings have been taken, but the same has not been denied in the counter affidavit. 13. In view of the above, matter requires re-consideration. 14. In view of the above facts as stated, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad