JUDGMENT : SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Sri Vidya Dhar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (opposite party no.1) in Revision No.173 of 2022 ( Vishal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. through Collector Gonda and another ) under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and also the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Collector, Gonda in Case No. 02197 of 2020, under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( State of U.P. vs. Vishal Singh and others ). 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings carried out by the learned Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act are vitiated being violative of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1997"). It is contended that the proceedings were instituted on the basis of report dated 07.12.2020 submitted by the Sub-Registrar (Sadar), Gonda, whereby deficiency of Rs. 12,29,010/- in stamp duty has been determined taking into account the fact that the subject matter of instrument is situated adjacent to 3-5 meter wide road and is also close to constructed house and surrounded by Abadi, while the stamp duty in respect of the same has been paid treating the subject matter as agricultural land. 4. The prime contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since 'notice' as contemplated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 was not issued or at least never served to the petitioners prior to the inspection, the petitioners were precluded from participating in the alleged inspection and the entire proceedings carried out on the basis of an ex-parte report of Sub-Registrar (Sadar) Gonda dated 07.12.2020 being against the well- settled law laid down by the Courts in catena of judgment renders the same illegal. 5. 5. He further contended that the learned Collector, while acting on the aforesaid reference under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, vide order dated 26.07.2021, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to make spot inspection in the presence of area Lekhpal and the Revenue Inspector and in the said order dated 26.07.2021 it is categorically mentioned that advance notice should be given to the purchaser so as to enable them to remain present on the spot at the time of the said inspection. In pursuance of said order, although, a report was submitted jointly by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Sub-Registrar, Gonda on 15.11.2021 but no notice pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2021 was ever served upon the petitioners. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the report dated 15.11.2021 being an ex-parte report does not reflect correct facts. Moreover, the alleged spot inspection, if any, made is in utter disregard of the direction issued by the learned Collector vide order dated 26.07.2021, being not reliable could not have been considered in passing of the impugned orders. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Rule 9 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property), 1997 provides that 'notice' is required to be tendered to the person himself or through his authorized agent or to be sent by registered post to that person. His contention is that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1997 regarding the notice, has not been followed in the present case. 7. His next submission is that the revision filed by the petitioners before the learned Commissioner under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2022 in the most mechanical manner without taking into consideration the settled law on the subject. The specific grounds raised therein regarding illegalities in the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 and the grave procedural irregularities committed in impugned proceeding have not at all been considered by the learned revisional authority. 8. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State was filed on 03.11.2022. In paragraph 6, 7 and 10 of the said counter affidavit, the respondents denied the allegation of non-service of notice and deposed that the petitioners, despite receiving notice, did not appear either in person or through their counsel. 9. 8. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State was filed on 03.11.2022. In paragraph 6, 7 and 10 of the said counter affidavit, the respondents denied the allegation of non-service of notice and deposed that the petitioners, despite receiving notice, did not appear either in person or through their counsel. 9. In response to the said counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a rejoinder affidavit on 06.12.2022 wherein the service of notice has been categorically denied in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the same. 10. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the State-respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition. They have drawn attention of this Court to Annexure CA-1, which is the copy of the notice and the proof of receipt of said notice dated 30.12.2020. They submit that the notice of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was duly served upon the petitioners. 11. Refuting the allegations that the spot inspection was carried out behind the back of the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submitted that the petitioners were orally informed before the said spot inspection. 12. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 13. Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 stipulates the condition that on receipt of a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The said rule very clearly provides that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector or its authority are required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. It is well settled in law that the proceeding under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex-parte report of the registering authority. The same view has been taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Others , 2009 (7) ADJ 185 (LB). 14. For ready reference, Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, is quoted hereinbelow: "Rule 7. The same view has been taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Others , 2009 (7) ADJ 185 (LB). 14. For ready reference, Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, is quoted hereinbelow: "Rule 7. (3) : The Collector may- a. Call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or a local authority; b. Examine and record the statement of any public officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and c. Inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument." 15. I have gone through the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner under Section 56 (1) of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The relevant portion of the which is extracted as under for ready reference:- 16. This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another , 2005 (98) RD 511 , has held as under:- "25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex- parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex- parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule- 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover, in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed along with the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasoned certainty." 17. This court in the case of Smt. Raziya Kahtoon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Stamp and Registration Lko and Ors. 2026 (1) ADJ 273 (LB) has held as under:- 30. In the instant case, from a perusal of the pleadings on record, it is evident that no notice was served upon the petitioner prior to carrying out the inspection, and the order dated 28.07.2014 was passed on the basis of an ex-parte inspection report. 2026 (1) ADJ 273 (LB) has held as under:- 30. In the instant case, from a perusal of the pleadings on record, it is evident that no notice was served upon the petitioner prior to carrying out the inspection, and the order dated 28.07.2014 was passed on the basis of an ex-parte inspection report. However, the said order was recalled vide order dated 17.10.2014. Subsequently, an inspection report dated 25.02.2015 was obtained from the Naib Tehsildar, Kurshi. Although the case of the State-respondents is that the said inspection was carried out after due information to the counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing on record to establish that any notice was issued to the petitioner. In any case, the notice to the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, is lacking in the present case. 31. Now, coming to the other aspect of the matter assailed by means of the present writ petition, it is contended that the Collector (opposite party no. 3), before passing the impugned order dated 04.02.2016 determining deficiency in stamp duty, has neither considered any oral or documentary evidence nor based the order on any cogent material. The impugned order has been passed merely by relying upon the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar. Thus, the said impugned order is in contravention of the provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act. This Court, in the case of Ajay Agarwal vs. Commissioner , 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB) observed as follows: "18. The provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Act clearly prescribe that prior to passing an order under the aforesaid provision, the Collector has to satisfy himself, which would mean that he has to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the market value of the property. Furthermore, he is also required to record reasons to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, whereafter he is required to determine the market value of the property and the duty payable thereon. Clearly, the Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, is required not to rely solely on the spot inspection report, but also to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the undervaluation of the instrument of transfer. Clearly, the Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, is required not to rely solely on the spot inspection report, but also to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the undervaluation of the instrument of transfer. As such, while passing orders under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector cannot rely only on the post-inspection report." 32. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Reena Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, (2020) 2 ADJ 162 , has held that the burden of proving that the market value of the property is more than that disclosed in the sale deed lies upon the State. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the State has failed to discharge the said burden, as there is no document in the form of a comparable sale deed of any property in the vicinity to indicate that the value of the property comprised in the instrument is higher than the value disclosed in the sale deed. 18. This court in the case of Mamta Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration Lko. and Others , 2026 (1) ADJ 762 has held as under:- 26. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels and the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that there is a gross violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and the impugned orders passed by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are totally based on the ex-parte report submitted by the Sub-Registrar (respondent no.3) which is not permissible under law. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 SCC OnLine All 91, has held as under: "12. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub Registrar has referred any other material in support of their orders. In Ram-Khelawan alias Bachha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur, 2005 (98) RD 511 , it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under section 47 A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In Ram-Khelawan alias Bachha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur, 2005 (98) RD 511 , it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under section 47 A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under section 47 A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 : (2008 (5) ALJ 261) (para 17), the ambit and scope of section 47 A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., 2008 (104) RD 235 and various other cases it has been held that under section 47 A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the sub-registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden. 13. Viewed as above, it is, thus, evident that the report of the sub-registrar could not legally form basis of the impugned orders. There is no material in possession of the respondents to show that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the land in dispute was not agricultural land. The laying of foundation subsequent to the sale deed is of little consequence so far as it relates to the determination of the payment of stamp duty under section 47-A of the Act is concerned. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that still the land in dispute is being used for agricultural purposes. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the extract of Khasra of 1414 Fasli. In the said Khasra it is mentioned that cattle fodder has been sown on the spot. However, in the Khasra under heading category in column 18 of the said Khasra the entry is "Abadi/Shamil Jot". The use of words 'Sha Ja' have been explained by the counsel for the parties as "Shamil Jot" which means joint cultivation. In the said Khasra it is mentioned that cattle fodder has been sown on the spot. However, in the Khasra under heading category in column 18 of the said Khasra the entry is "Abadi/Shamil Jot". The use of words 'Sha Ja' have been explained by the counsel for the parties as "Shamil Jot" which means joint cultivation. At this stage, the learned standing counsel submits that entry of "Abadi" reflects that the property in dispute is not agricultural property. Along with the counter affidavit the revenue extract (Khasra) of 1412 Fasli which corresponds to the year 2007 has been annexed. From this Khasra it is evident that crop of Urd was sown in Kharif season in the land in question. However, there is an entry of "Abadi/Shamil Jot" under the column 18. The said document does not relate to the date of the execution of the sale deed nor appears to have been filed before the authorities below and as such is liable to be ignored. Besides above, the fact that the crop was sown and factum of joint cultivation mentioned in the said document are also liable to be taken into consideration and cannot be ignored. The fact remains that there is no cogent or convincing material on the record to show that the land on the date of execution of the sale deed was other than the agricultural land, at least." 19. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Omar Iqbal Abbasi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 9432 of 2023) decided on 08.11.2023 has held as under: "18. A perusal of the said inspection report also does not indicate the presence of the petitioner or that any notice was given to him to be present during the said spot inspection. This Court in number of cases held that provisions of Rule 7(3) (c) of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 are mandatory in nature and before ordering such an inspection adequate notice should have been given to the petitioner and the said inspection should have been conducted in his presence. Accordingly, impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside." 20 . Accordingly, impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside." 20 . In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State- respondents that the petitioner was orally informed before inspection, is concerned; the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the obvious reasons that the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 contemplates 'notice' while the mechanism of 'service of notice' is provided in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1997. 21. For convenience, Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 9. Service of notice etc .- All notices, orders and other documents required to be served upon any person shall be deemed to be duly served.- (a) Where the person to be served is a company, if it is addressed to the secretary of the company at its registered office or at its principal office or place of business and is either :- (i) sent by registered post; or (ii) delivered at the registered officer or at the principal office or place of business of the company. (b) Where the person to be served is a firm, if it is addressed to the firm at its principal place of business, identifying it by the name or style under which its business is carried on and is either— (i) sent by registered post; or (ii) delivered at the said place of business. (c) Where the person to be served is a public body or a corporation or society or other body, if it is addressed to the secretary, treasurer or other chief officer of that body corporation or society or other body at its principal office, and is either— (i) sent by registered post; or (ii) delivered at that office. (d) in any other case, if it is addressed to the person, to be served, and (i) is given or tendered to him or his authorized agent; or (ii) is sent by registered post to that person; or (iii) if such person cannot be found and notice or order or the document sent to him through registered post is received back undelivered, is affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business, or is given or tendered to some adult member of his family." (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 22. The above-quoted Rule clearly provides that if the notice is to be served to a person, the same is given or tendered to him or his authorized agent or to be sent by a registered post to that person. In the event if the person is not found, the notice or the order or the document sent to him through registered post is received back undelivered, it may be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or address or by giving or tendering it to some adult members of his family. The similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Peeyush Kumar versus State of U.P. and others , (2011) 113 RD 830 wherein the Court has been pleased to observe as under:- "To put it simply, first an effort is to be made by tendering notice personally to the person concerned or upon his authorised agent. The notice may also be sent to him by registered post and if the person is not found or the notice sent by registered post is received back undelivered, it may be affixed at his last known place of residence or business or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family. " 23. A bare perusal of the photo-copy of service report dated 30.12.2020 as contained in Annexure No. CA-1 of the counter affidavit shows that, the date on the top of the service report, is mentioned as 30.12.2020, however, the order of the Collector directing the authorities to inform the petitioner to be present on the spot for inspection is dated 26.07.2021, which goes to show that the same has no relevance with the inspection under the direction of the Collector dated 26.07.2021 and as such, on the basis of the above facts it can be easily inferred that the statutory requirement of inspection after due notice to the parties as stipulated under the Rule 7(3) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 is miserably lacking in the impugned proceeding rendering the same vitiated. 24. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2022, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the learned revisional authority ex-parte without taking into consideration the pleas and grounds raised by the petitioners/revisionists. 24. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2022, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the learned revisional authority ex-parte without taking into consideration the pleas and grounds raised by the petitioners/revisionists. No categorical finding has been returned on the alleged illegalities in the proceedings resulting into the passing of the order under challenge dated 15.12.2021 by the learned Collector although while passing the order it was imperative for the learned Revisional Court to record his findings on the contested issues to reflect his satisfaction as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the proceeding that culminated into the impugned order. 25. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (opposite party no.1) is set aside . The matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (opposite party no. 1) to pass an order afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and also to record his findings as to the compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) read with Rule 9 (d) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 in the light of the observations made here-in-above, expeditiously; preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. 26 . It is clarified that while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court has not delved into the merits of the claims of the parties as to the assessment of valuation of the land in question or other disputed questions of fact. 27. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is partly allowed. 28. Any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order will abide by the fresh decision to be taken by the concerned authorities. 29 . No order as to cost.