Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66610 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67781 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mohd. Mehdi Kazmi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faizan Ahmad,S.F.A. Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Fatma Nazvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the respondent no. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a part of agricultural land vide sale deed dated 30.07.2001 after paying requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex parte report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner without any service of notice upon the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 12.05.2006, the respondent no. 4 imposed deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest & penalty upon the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.08.2010 on a different ground. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, neither proper notice was issued to the petitioner, nor the same was served on the petitioner, which has been admitted in the impugned order dated 12.05.2006 that the notice was issued and the same was not returned and therefore, the service is deemed to be sufficient. He further submits that the impugned order dated 12.05.2006 has been passed ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on the mere fact that the land is situated in close proximity to a residential area, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that the land in question was agricultural land at the time of execution of the sale deed and there was no document on record showing that the land was used for commercial purpose prior to the date of execution of the sale deed. He further submits that the revisional court passed the impugned order on a different ground, which is not permissible under the law. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record Perusal of the record shows that the land in question was purchased after paying stamp duty. The stand of the petitioner was that he was never put to any notice before determining the deficiency of stamp duty by the impugned order. The record further shows that since the notice was issued and the same was not returned, deemed service was treated, which shows that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forward his case as well as to rebut the ground taken against him. Before the revisional court also, a new ground was taken, which is not permissible in law. In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the respondent no. 4 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Prayagraj, i.e., the respondent no. 4, 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. The petitioner will be at liberty to produce all evidence and material in support of his case. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioners shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 4. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad