Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56168 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8611 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Ram Dube,Shobhit Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property in question in public auction being the highest bidder and paid due stamp duty thereof, but the authorities below have wrongly initiated the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. He further submits that after a long gap from the date of execution of the sale deed, the petitioner received a notice under sections 33/47 of the Stamp Act and Stamp Case No. 316/2004 was registered, to which a detailed reply was submitted. Not being satisfied with the reply, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 imposing deficiency of stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2022 without considering the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one M/s C.L. Emulsion International took a loan from the UPFC, Jhansi and mortgaged the property, but could not repay the loan amount and as such, the UPFC initiated the proceedings under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and proceedings for auction were initiated. He further submits that an advertisement was issued in the newspaper on 27.07.1997 and thereafter, revised advertisement was issued on 03.09.1997, in which the reserved price was fixed for Rs. 5 lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner offered his bid, which was accepted amounting to Rs. 6,76,000/- being the highest bidder. Pursuant thereto, on 27.06.2002, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, but since the property in question was purchased in a public auction, which is based on market value, the authorities, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, proceeded against the petitioner by imposing deficiency of stamp duty and penalty. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Mausoof Ali Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 15496/2008, decided on 29.11.2012] and Ashok Kumar Vs. CCRA & Others [Writ C No. 29332/1999, decided on 28.02.2013]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the property in question has been purchased by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued by the UPFC. The said proceedings were initiated by the UPFC in exercise of powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Section 29 thereof empowers the Corporation to sale, lease or mortgage the property of the borrower/defaulter. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Corporation under section 29 of the Act of 1951 for transfer of the property of the borrower. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the property in question in public auction after due advertisement in the newspapers and the petitioner, being the highest bidder, was declared successful. The proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be initiated if the property has been purchased in a public auction. The issue in hand is not res integra. This Court in Mausoof Ali Siddiqui (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra) has held that the market value which the property has fetched in auction is a true and fair market value of the property at the relevant date. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of this Court, the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Prayagraj cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the initiation of the proceedings along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 16.4.2025/Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad