Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79791 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6684 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Milan Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned notice dated 08.07.2020 issued by the Collector, Stamp, Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.2014, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty. On 30.05.2020, the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, made a report for initiating proceedings under section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act. On the basis of the said report, the Collector Stamp has issued the impugned notice dated 08.07.2020, to which the petitioner has submitted reply, which is still pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice itself is barred by limitation and therefore, the entire proceeding is bad in law. He further submits that under the Indian Stamp Act, proceedings with regard to deficiency of stamp duty can be initiated within a period of four years from the date of execution of sale deed or after getting sanction from the State Government, the same can be initiated within a period of 8 years from the date of its execution. He further submits that in the case in hand, neither the proceedings were initiated within a period of four years, nor any permission has been granted by the State Government for initiating the present proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned notice and submits that the instant writ petition has been filed against a show cause notice, to which the petitioner has already submitted his reply and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in M/s DLF Home Developers Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others [Writ C No. 13451 of 2025, decided on 09.05.2025]. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the notice only on the ground of limitation that the proceedings have been initiated after a period of four years or extended period of eight years without any sanction from the State Government, but neither any pleading has been made in the writ petition, nor any pleading has been made in the reply submitted before the authority below. 8. Further, this Court in M/s DLF Home Developers Private Limited (supra) has held that mere issuance of show cause notice does not amount to an adverse order, which may be held to affect the rights of the parties. The necessity for issuing a show cause notice and the requirement of specifying the grounds on which the action is proposed is in fact a necessary prerequisite, so as to ensure that the noticee is aware of the grounds on which action is proposed and has an adequate opportunity to rebut the same. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned notice. 10. The writ petition is dismissed at this stage on the ground of maintainability. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad