HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40135 of 2023 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 113 of 2022 as well as the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Case No. 04543 of 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide sale deed dated 15.12.2017, the petitioners purchased the agricultural land. Thereafter, an ex parte spot inspection report was submitted stating deficiency of stamp duty on the instrument in question. On the basis of the said ex parte report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated, to which the petitioner submitted reply specifically stating therein that the land in dispute was purchased as agricultural land, but without considering the same, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2022, deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, was imposed, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.08.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, standing crops were there, which is apparent from the khasra. He further submits that even in the ex parte inspection report, it has been mentioned that after purchase, gang-saw was established, which itself shows that at the time of purchase, the land in dispute was an agricultural land. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of ex parte report and without making any fresh spot inspection, which cannot be permitted in view of the provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. He further submits that there is no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 declaring the land to be non-agricultural at the time of execution of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh K. Dwivedi, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Deen Dayal Goyal And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the sale deed. He further submits that the date of purchase will be the relevant date for determining the stamp duty. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P. [2015 (3) ADJ 136] and the judgements of this Court in Gopal Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 13824/2006, decided on 14.02.2020] and Vikas Vindal & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 40001/2024, decided on 29.07.2025] as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Another [2012 (1) Supreme 324]. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the land in dispute was purchased as an agricultural land and after paying due stamp duty thereof. The record shows that ex parte inspection report was prepared, to which the petitioners were never put to any notice, which is clearly in violation of the provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. Further, the date of purchase of property and its registration would be relevant for determining the stamp duty, when the sale deed was executed, the land in question was used for the agricultural purposes. Merely because after sometime, the land was used for non-agricultural purpose will not be the determining factor for assessing the market value of the property in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in Ambrish Tandon (supra) as well as this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen (supra), Gopal Krishna (supra) and Vikas Vindal (supra). Further, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of potential use of the property, which is neither permissible under the Act or the Rules, nor the same is in consonance with the judgements cited here-in-above. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 113 of 2022 as well as the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Case No. 04543 of 2018 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 10. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. October 9, 2025 Amit Mishra WRIC No. 40135 of 2023 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad