Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85514 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3983 of 2023 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the CCRA, Varanasi in Stamp Appeal No. 00783/2020 as well as the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur in Case No. 677/2012-13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 02.11.2012, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner after paying due stamp duty. He further submits that on the basis of an alleged inspection dated 17.01.2013, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner. The respondent no. 3, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2020, imposed deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.12.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide sale deed dated 02.11.2012, three plots, i.e., plot nos. 914, 970-Ka and 972, were purchased and at the time of purchase of the land in question, as an agricultural land. He further submits that by an ex parte report dated 07.02.2013, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted reply with a request for fresh inspection. Pursuant thereto, fresh inspection report was prepared on 01.05.2019; wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the construction over the plot in question is five years old. He further submits that the property was purchased in the year 2012 and the report clearly indicates that the property was 5 years old only and therefore, at the time of purchase, no construction can be attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that copy of the khasra was filed; wherein, crops were shown to be grown over the land, but no weightage was given to the same. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased showing it to be an agricultural land, which consists of three plots. There is no dispute with regard to plot nos. 970 & 972, which were admitted to be an agricultural land. The dispute is only with regard to the plot no. 914. In the first report dated 07.02.2013, which was conducted after two months from the date of purchase, it was stated that there is a tin shed; wherein, some alleged School was being run. Thereafter, another inspection was conducted on 01.05.2019, in which the construction was found to be five years old. While passing the impugned orders, the authorities below have only relied upon the first report dated 07.02.2013 and not the subsequent report dated 01.05.2019, which specifically states that the construction was of five years old, which relate back to the year 2014; whereas, admittedly, the sale deed was executed in the year 2012. Further, the date of purchase will be the relevant date for determining the stamp and on the said date, the land was used as an agricultural land as is clearly from perusal of the khasra, which was brought on record before the authority below, but no weightage was given to it while passing the impugned orders. There is no material on record to show that the land use has been changed as per section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. This Court in Jagvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 27928/2021, decided on 26.11.2024], and Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 19644/2016, decided 13.04.2023] has specifically held that the proceedings under sections 47-A/33 of the Stamp Act cannot be justified treating the agricultural land as abadi land without there being any declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the CCRA, Varanasi in Stamp Appeal No. 00783/2020 as well as the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur in Case No. 677/2012-13 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad