Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62538 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11268 of 2024 Petitioner :- Aimad Ahmad Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mridul Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Praval Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dated 22.05.2023 passed by respondent no.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 3.9.2022 to which the seller had obtained the permission from the NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report being submitted that too without any notice or information to the petitioner or calling any objection, the impugned order was passed on 22.05.2023. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision wherein specific grounds were taken that neither any notice nor any information was ever given to the petitioner for the spot inspection of the property in question or before passing of the impugned order, however, the revisional authority without giving any weightage to the same, rejected the revision. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned and submits that due notice was provided to the petitioner but the petitioner in his own wisdom did not choose to appear and file his objection and therefore, the order impugned is justified. 5. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 6. The record shows that against the ex-parte order, a revision was filed wherein specific grounds were taken as grounds nos. 12 & 14 stating that neither any notice notice was ever given to the petitioner for the spot inspection nor before passing the ex-parte impugned order passed by the Collector. Though the said fact was also noticed in the impugned order, but no specific finding has been recorded. 7. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re- consideration. 8. In the light of the facts as stated, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3 for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder as well as giving the due opportunity and liberty to the petitioner herein to adduce and produce relevant material and evidence in his favour, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the respondent no.3. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad