Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30067 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18228 of 2011 Petitioner :- Nitin Tyagi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,Smt. Archana Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. AND Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18230 of 2011 Petitioner :- Subhash Chand Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,Smt. Archana Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. With the consent of the parties, Writ C No. 18228 of 2011 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. WRIT - C No. - 18228 of 2011 The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 42/2009-10 as well as the impugned order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad in Case No. 96/2009-10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.2008, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of the ex parte report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 13.06.2009, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner. On 06.07.2009, the Additional Collector issued notice to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his objection, but without considering the same, the Additional Collector, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2009, imposed deficiency of stamp duty together with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.02.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that relevant khasra - khatauni was filed before the authority below showing that at the time of execution of sale deed and thereafter, the land in question has been used for agricultural purposes, but no weightage has been given at the time of passing the impugned orders. He further submits that the land in question has been treated as commercial as well as near abadi. He further submits that the land in question is a sub-merged land, which is adjacent to Hindan river. Specific pleading was made in the objection filed before the authority below (Annexure No. 4) as well as in the grounds of appeal (Annexure No. 9), but no weightage was given by the authorities below while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that the Additional District Magistrate submitted the report without any notice or intimation to the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings initiated pursuant to the report are wholly illegal. He further submits that the land in question was purchased on 28.03.2008; whereas, the alleged spot inspection was carried out almost after one year, i.e., on 13.06.2009. He further submits that the character of the land cannot be the basis of its future potential and as such, the impugned order is bad in law. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The record shows that the land in question was purchased showing it to be agricultural land and the proceedings were initiated treating the same to be non- agricultural land. In the objection, the petitioner mentioned that the land in dispute is an agricultural land situated near the Hindan river, which is a sub- merged land and therefore, it cannot be used other than the agricultural purpose, but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. The same ground was also taken before the appellate court, but although the appellate court has noticed the argument of the petitioner, but no weightage was given. In the writ petition also, the petitioner has specifically pleaded the issue, but no specific denial has been made by the State in the counter affidavit. Since the land in question, as stated by the petitioner, is a sub-merged land adjacent to the Hindan river, which was pleaded at the very inception of the proceedings as well as before the appellate court and this Court, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned orders passed in these writ petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below in these writ petitions are hereby quashed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The matters are remanded back to the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad, i.e., the respondent no. 3, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 3. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad