Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30254 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43453 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Ekta Orchid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurang Kulshreshtha,Prem Sagar Verma 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. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner had purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte spot inspection report being prepared, proceedings under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued, pursuant to which, the petitioner put in appearance and filed his reply/objection. Thereafter, a report from the Collector, Firozabad was called, on which basis, the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 was passed by respondent no.2. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.12.2023. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot in question has been shown as an agricultural land in the sale deed and the due stamp duty was paid thereof. However, on the basis of an ex-parte report, the impugned order has been passed. 5. He further submits that in the grounds of revision, a specific plea has been made that there is no compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that specific grounds are also taken in the writ petition in paragraph no. 37, which has not been denied in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner's land was having commercial value, which was wrongly described as residential plot and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased in the year 2014 and thereafter, on the basis of ex parte spot inspection dated 19.08.2014, the proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated, but in spite of the specific ground having been taken in the memo of appeal with regard to non- compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, no finding was recorded with regard to the same. The petitioner has also taken the grounds in the writ petition as mentioned above, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the matter requires re-consideration. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. 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 authority concerned. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad