Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73399 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22777 of 2018 Petitioner :- Praveen Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhusudan Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide sale deed dated 02.07.2007, the petitioner purchased the land in dispute after paying requisite stamp duty. On 01.08.2017, a reference was made by the Sub Registrar with regard to deficiency of stamp duty and on the said basis, the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted objection. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2017, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order imposing deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 01.06.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in support whereof, khatauni as well as other relevant materials were placed to show that the land in question was an agricultural land, but not being satisfied from the reply, order dated 20.12.2017 was passed, treating the land in question as non- agricultural land. He further submits that Khatauni was brought on record too before the authorities, showing that the crops were grown over the land in question, but no due weightage has been given to the said fact by the authorities. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without there being any spot inspection. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Nitika Chopra Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 22784/2018, decided on 30.09.2024]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is admitted fact that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner showing the same as an agricultural land which has been treated as non agricultural land by the authorities, against which an appeal was preferred wherein in ground, it was specifically averred that no declaration under Section 143 UPZA & LR Act has been made as an abadi as well as despite being given an application for making fresh spot inspection in the presence of petitioner, as per Rule 7(3) C of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Act, 1997, no compliance of the same has been made by the Collector, and the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the said Rule. The issue in hand is not res integra. This Court in in Jagroop Singh (supra) has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the impugned order cannot be justified. Further, in Raj Kumar (supra), this Court has specifically held that the proceedings under sections 47-A/33 of the Stamp Act cannot be justified treating the agricultural land as abadi land without there being any declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. In view of the facts as stated above as well as law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. Any amount deposited by the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 4 % per annum from the date of deposit till the actual payment is made. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad