1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21406 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21324 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sonamati Foundation Trust Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21329 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sonamati Foundation Trust Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey 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. Similar controversy is involved in both the writ petitions, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement treating Writ C No. 21324 of 2024 as leading case. Writ C No. 21324 of 2024 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.9.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by respondent no. 3. 2 4. A short submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that entire proceeding is in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice has been served upon the petitioner before initiating the present proceedings under Section 47 A /33 of Stamp Act. He submits that in the impugned order, the authorities have accepted the fact that notice was not served upon the petitioner but still the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that specific pleading has been raised in paragraph no. 9 of this writ petition, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit. He submits that petitioner has been deprived from submitting objection , therefore, the entire proceedings is bad and liable to be set aside. He prays for allowing the writ petitions. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The record shows that findings of fact has been recorded in respect of non service of notice upon the petitioner in the order dated 30.9.2022, the relevant part of which is quoted hereunder:- "उपरोक्त आख्या के वा द दर्ज रोजिर्जस्टरो केरो दिदनां के 12-01-2022 के पक्षके रो के निनांयामा नांसा रो विवालेख मा# अंदिकेत पत सानांमात& फा उडेशनां ट्रस्ट के या लेया आरो. सा&. 754, गले& नां. 12, वादनां एन्क्लेवा, खड़ा के5लेनां&, तहसा&ले वा जिर्जले ग जिर्जया बा द परो नांदिटसा र्ज रो8 दिकेया गया । नांदिटसा अंदमा त मा&ले न्या या लेया के प्रा प्त हए। ऐसा& जिस्=नित मा# रो र्जस्वा दिहत के दृवि?गत वा द के निनांस्त रोण पत्रा वाले& परो उपलेब्ध अंनिDलेखE के आध रो परो दिकेया र्ज नां न्या यानिFत एवा विवानिध साम्मात हH। " ( Emphasis supplied by this Court) by this Court) this Court) 3 8. It is admitted that notice was returned as unserved to the court concerned. Specific pleading has been raised in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, which is quoted hereunder: “That the petitioner has never received any notice either by registered post or by any other means in relation to proceedings under Section 47 A of the Act initiated against him going on before the respondent no. 2, so he at all was not aware of the said proceedings and as such was unable to file objections in aforesaid proceedings initiated illegally on the report of the Sub-Registrar.” 9. In paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, the said pleadings have been admitted as under: “That the contents of paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that after registration of the stamp case in the instant case notice to the petitioner for presenting its case was issued to the petitioner at the address Sonamati Foundation Trust Office, R.C. -754, Gali No. 12, Vandana Enclave, Khoda Colony, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad mentioned in the sale deed in question but despite best efforts by the process server petitioner could not be traced so the notice was returned back unserved to the court below. In view of aforesaid circumstances case was proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of the material on record in the interest of revenue.” 10. Once the fact is admitted that the petitioner has not given any notice or opportunity of rebuttal, the entire proceedings itself is clear cut violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. In view of above, the impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions are hereby set aside. 12. Both the writ petitions are allowed. 13. The authority concerned is directed to refund any 4 amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 14. However, it is open for the respondent authority to proceed against the petitioner , if so advised, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad