HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 8271 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.M.B. Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Mishra, learned A.C.S.C. for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the notice dated 3.8.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have filed Suit No. 213 of 2018 for recovery of money of Rs. 13,00,000/- expense of case along with 6 % interest, which was decreed on 23.8.2018 in favour of the petitioners and when the defendant did not comply the said judgement, then the petitioners filed Execution Case No. 66 of 2018 for recovery of the said amount in which the execution court passed the final decree in favour of the petitioner and due to the reason that the defendant failed to comply the judgement, the execution court seized the immovable property of 2.5530 hectare related to the defendant. He submits that the said property was auctioned and the petitioners being the highest bidder, the auction has been confirmed by the Court in their favour. Thereafter a valuation report was called for and the same was submitted by the Deputy Registrar (Stamp) Jhansi on 28.8.2024 in which total valuation of the property in question was found Rs. 21,07,610/- and in pursuance of the Court's order, the petitioners have deposited the stamp duty together with registration fee and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioners on 22.2.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, Kalendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Likhdhari And Another .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) was issued to the petitioners on 3.8.2024 in which total deficiency of stamp together with registration fees has been imposed to the tune of Rs. 12,00,160/-, which is under challenged in the present writ petition. He submits that the said notice is illegal and arbitrary in nature as the same cannot be issued when the sale certificate was issued by the Court after calling the valuation report from the Deputy Registrar (Stamp). 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8281 of 2022 (Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. and another) decided on 10.11.2022 and Civil Appeal No. 12527 of 2024 (The State of Punjab and another Vs. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others) decided on 19.11.2024 as well as judgement of this Court in the case M/S SRSD Buildcon Venture Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:154868). 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners being the highest bidder in the auction, the sale was confirmed by the Court and the sale certificate was issued on 22.2.2024. The record further shows that the valuation report was submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Stamp wherein total valuation of the property in question was found Rs. 21,07,610/- and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has deposited the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 150500/- along with registration fees Rs. 21,500/-. Once the petitioners have paid the stamp duty in pursuance of the valuation report submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Stamp in the Court itself, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not justified in the eyes of law. 9. The controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Apex Court in the cases of ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. (supra) and M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of M/S SRSD Buildcon Venture Ltd (supra). 10. The said legal proposition could not be disputed by learned ACSC WRIC No. 8271 of 2025 2 appearing on behalf of State-respondents. 11. Once the legal proposition is in favour of the petitioners and facts are not in dispute that the property in question was purchased by the petitioners in Court auction, no further action is required to be taken, more so when in the case in hand, the petitioner has deposited the stamp duty after report being submitted by the Deputy Registrar (Stamp). 12. In view of above, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. September 15, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- WRIC No. 8271 of 2025 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad