1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67952 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10789 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramlakhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being decided without calling for the counter affidavit, at the admission stage itself. 3. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 10.09.2024 passed by respondent no.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.04.2024 by his real brother namely Bhuwanesh Kumar gifting the property in question. The said gift deed was treated as sale of the commercial property and on that basis a report was submitted by the Sub Registrar, Bidhuna, District- Auraiya on 18.06.2024 and the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and thereafter a notice was issued to which objection was filed by the petitioner. However, being not satisfied with the same, an order was passed on 10.09.2024 treating the said gift deed as sale of the property. Feeling aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner has preferred a appeal which was dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 18.01.2025 without considering the material on record. 2 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Santosh Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ-C No.22313 of 2023), and submits that gift deed cannot be treated as sale of the property. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. It is admitted between the parties that petitioner is real brother of one Bhuwanesh Kumar, who has executed a registered gift deed dated18.04.2024 in favour of the petitioner against which the proceedings under Section 47A of the Stamp Act was initiated. 9. The issue in hand is no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Santosh Gupta (supra) has already decided the present controversy as therein, it has been held that a gift deed cannot be considered as a sale of property. 10. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated are hereby quashed. 11. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the present litigation shall be refunded to him within a period of one month along with interest at the rate of 4 % per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment of the said amount. Order Date :- 30.04.2025 Pravesh Mishra/- Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad