Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71480 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23542 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hazi Izlal Iqbal Qurashi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/ Board of Revenue, Circuit Court No.-1 (Meerut) Mandal Meerut, District- Meerut in Suit No.MIS/033/2022, Meerut (Computerized No.ME20225299166), under Section 56(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Hazi Izlal Qurasi Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the respondent no.3- Collector/ District Magistrate, District- Meerut. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an agricultural land was purchased in the joint names. Some dispute arose. Thereafter an Original Suit No. 1209 of 2004 was filed before the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.5, Meerut. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 22.03.2005 in terms of compromise and the petitioner became the owner and the possession of the property was taken by him. Thereafter judgment debtor executed a released deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.2007. He submits that thereafter a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner holding deficiency of stamp duty. The petitioner filed his objection specifically stating therein that the case was decreed in his favour and during the pendency of the case, a compromise was entered and on that basis the petitioner became the owner of the property in question but not being satisfied the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 was passed holding deficiency of stamp. A copy of compromise application alongwith decree has been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, wherein specific grounds were taken but still not being satisfied the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 was passed confirming the deficiency of stamp duty. He submits that once the specific ground was taken that the decree was passed in his favour and after compromise in the execution case, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property, the proceedings ought not to have been initiated against him, but the authorities have given no weightage to it. Learned counsel prays that the matter requires reconsideration. 4. To the said submissions, learned counsel for the parties have no objection. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 6. The record shows that the petitioner at every stage taken the ground that the decree was passed in his favour and after compromise in the execution case, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property but in the impugned orders the said fact has neither been noticed nor any finding has been recorded, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter requires reconsideration. 8. For the said purpose, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2024 and 28.11.2008 passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, respectively, are hereby quashed. 9. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 10. The matter is remanded back to the Collector/ District Magistrate, District- Meerut, i.e., respondent no.3, for passing a fresh order after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of present proceedings shall be subject to the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no.3. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Radhika Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad