Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6322 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28277 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Anita And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Shri Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur as well as the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bhadohi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide sale deed dated 04.11.2022, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty. He further submits that on 01.03.2023, an ex parte report was submitted by the Assistant Inspector General stating that there is no agricultural activity near the land in question and therefore, there is a deficiency of stamp duty. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner filed objection. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.06.2023, the respondent no. 3 imposed deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty treating the land in question as non-agricultural land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.05.2024. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the market value of the land for the purposes of payment of stamp duty cannot be determined with reference to its future use. He further submits that sufficient materials were brought on record, such as khasra-khatauni, but no weightage was given to the same while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that in reply to the notice, photographs and material to show that the crops were grown (i.e. wheat) were placed, but without rebutting to the same, the Collector has passing the impugned order. He further submits that in the memo of appeal, ground no. 4, 5 & 6 were taken but without considering the same, though noticed in the impugned order, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Collector. He further submits that the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records and there is no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and therefore, the same cannot be treated as non- agricultural. He further submits that in the land in dispute, neither the commercial activity is being carried out nor the same is used for the residential purposes. He further submits that the inspection was carried out ex parte without any notice or opportunity. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that in pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioners have not controverted the allegation made therein and therefore, he tried to justify the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. In the memo of appeal, the petitioners have taken ground nos. 4, 5 & 6, which were noticed in the impugned order, but the same have not been controverted. Further, the petitioners have brought on record khasra - khatauni (Annexure Nos. 3 & 4) showing that the crops of Wheat, Jawar, etc. were grown in the land in question, which have not been considered in the impugned orders. Further, as is evident from page nos. 37 & 34, in paragraph no. 4 of the impugned order, arguments were noticed, but no finding, whatsoever, controvering the same have been made. In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter requires reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur as well as the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bhadohi are hereby quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector/District Magistrate, Bhadohi, i.e., the respondent no. 3, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioners shall be the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 3. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad