ANAMIKA DWIVEDI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/31975/2023 · 2025-09-18
Piyush Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50730 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50730 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Reserved on 16.9.2025 Delivered on 19.9.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT C No. 31975 of 2023 Anamika Dwivedi and another …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of UP and others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Vimalendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : CSC Court No. - 7 HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State respondents.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 21.8.2023 and 27.11.2021 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased agricultural land by way of registered sale deed dated 27.8.2020 and paid the due stamp duty but on the basis of an exparte spot inspection report dated 23.10.2020 alleging that the land in question is situated near the abadi land, the proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has submitted objection on 15.1.2021 however being not satisfied with the same, the impugned
order dated 27.11.2021 has been passed by which deficiency of stamp
2 WRIT C No. 31975 of 2023 together with penalty and interest has been imposed. The petitioner has challenged the said order in appeal, which has also been dismissed without considering the material on record.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that different dates of spot inspection have been mentioned in the orders. He submits that in the spot inspection report (annexed as Annexure no. 2 of the writ petition), the date of spot inspection has been mentioned as 23.10.2020 whereas in one order, the date of spot inspection has been mentioned as 21.2.2021 and in other order the same has been mentioned as 25.1.2020. 5. He further submits that in the counter affidavit, the spot inspection report annexed as annexure CA-1, the date of spot inspection has been mentioned as 22.1.2021 and same has been conducted by Additional District Magistrate (Finance). He submits that once there is discrepancy in the spot inspection report itself, the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of spot inspection report is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the dates mentioned on the spot inspection report appears to have wrongly mentioned, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. Looking to the aforesaid discrepancy in the spot inspection report, this Court vide order dated 28.8.2025 has summoned the original record, which has been produced before this Court on 16.9.2025. 9. On perusal of the original record, it shows that no copy of the spot inspection report is found in the record, which has been mentioned in the impugned orders. 10. The petitioner from the very beginning has disputed the spot inspection being conducted of the property in question. The stamp duty was duly paid treating the land in question to be agricultural land and the respondent authority at every levels have mentioned the different dates
3 WRIT C No. 31975 of 2023 of spot inspection as 21.2.2021 and 25.1.2020, which too could not available in the original records. 11. Further in the counter affidavit, spot inspection report dated 22.1.2021 has been annexed as CA-1 which has been prepared by A.D.M. (Finance), where as the spot inspection report dated 23.10.2020 annexed as Annexure No. 2 of the writ petition was prepared by Circle Lekhpal and submitted by Tehsildar. 12. Once the basis for initiation of the entire proceeding, itself creates doubt and the same is also not available on the original record, the entire proceedings is liable to be set aside. 13.
In view of above, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed. 15. Any amount deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to the petitioners along with interest @ 4 % per annum within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 16. The original records shall be returned by the ACSC forthwith. (Piyush Agrawal, J.) September 19, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad