Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114641 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27268 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Rajmati Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by respondent no.2, i.e., Deputy Commissioner Stamp Basti, Division Basti in Case No.138 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.C2024170000000138), under Section 56(A-1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as well as impugned order dated 17.10.2023 passed by respondent no.3, i.e., Collector/District Magistrate, Basti in Case No.1602 of 2022 (Computerized No.D202217140001602), under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had purchased an agricultural land by way of executing a sale deed on 19.09.2022 and pay the stamp duty as per the prevalent circle rate, thereafter, an ex parte survey report dated 27.09.2022 was prepared alleging the property to be non- agriculture. On the said basis, the proceedings were initiated under Section 147 (A) to which objection was filed. Not being satisfied, the Collector (Stamp) passed an order dated 17.10.2023 holding not only the deficiency of stamp duty but also levy interest and penalty. Against which, an appeal was filed, specific ground was taken that the spot inspection was ex parte, no notice was served upon the petitioner as contemplated under Section 7(3)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, though while deciding the issue in the impugned order, the appellate court have recorded the submission but no finding has been recorded. Thereafter, in the writ petition specific ground was taken in para 6 of the writ, which has not been specifically denied in their counter affidavit, only it refers that it is a confidential report. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2024 LawSuit(All) 1044 and Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and another (Writ-C No.19644 of 2016 decided on April 13, 2023). 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. He submits that the land in question is not being declared as an agricultural land and the same has been declared as Naveen Parti, therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. 5. After hearing the parties, the court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the land has been shown to be purchased as an agricultural land and stamp duty has been paid. The proceedings against the petitioner had only been initiated on the basis of report dated 27.09.2022 holding the land as non agriculture. 6. The record shows that the petitioner was never put to notice at the time of inspection or thereafter any spot inspection was made as contemplated under Section 7(3)(c) of U.P. Rules, 1997. 7. This Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain (Supra) and Raj Kumar (Supra) has specifically held that burden of proof to establish the payment of deficiency of stamp duty is on the State and the petitioner is required to be put to notice to the spot inspection to be carried out in terms of Section 7(3)(c) of the Rules, which in the present case, have clearly been violated the issue in hand is covered by the aforesaid judgments. 8. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. Amount deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with interest of 4%. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad