Radhey Shyam Verma and Another vs Additional Commissioner II Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 2 Others

Sri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents are present

¶10

Short Counter Affidavit dated 12.02.2026 filed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, in the Court today, is taken on record.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

¶12

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.11.2025 and 06.05.2025 passed by opposite party no.1 and 2 as contained in annexure no.1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to withdraw the notice issued under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, dated 30.10.2022 as contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition.

¶14

(iii) Any other suitable order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioners purchased a plot of land bearing Khata No. 411 (Minjumla), measuring 0.079 hectare, situated in Pargana Utraula, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, through a sale deed executed on 24.05.2022. The conveyance was executed in favor of Shri Masihul Hasan and Mustafidul Hasan, sons of Sirajul Hasan; Shri Siraj Abbas and Meraj Abbas, sons of Masoodul Hasan; Smt. Gauhar Bano, wife of Masoodul Hasan; all residents of Amayya Deoria, Pargana Utraula, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, for a sale consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/-, on which stamp duty to a tune of Rs. 2,05,500 was paid by the petitioners at the time of execution of the

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

2

said sale deed.

It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that, on the basis of an inspection report dated 27.07.2022 conducted by the Sub-Registrar, Utraula, it was found that the subject property was found to be situated at Plot No. 411 adjacent to Utraula–Balrampur Road, behind an Indian Oil petrol pump and is surrounded by Abadi areas. The said report provided that, although certain agricultural activities were found on the spot but since construction activities were also found underway that goes to show the nature of the subject matter of the instrument has the potential of the residential plot. The report also noted that the petitioners had previously purchased land adjacent to the petrol pump via Sale Deed No. 3062/2022, and assesses that there exists a total deficiency of stamp duty and registration fees amounting to Rs. 4,83,240/-.

¶20

Acting on the said report, the learned Collector, Balrampur, initiated proceedings under section 47-A(3) of the India Stamp Act, 1899 and issued a notice dated 30.10.2022 to the petitioners. Consequently, Case No. 651 of 2022, (State vs. Radheshyam Verma and Ghanshyam Verma), which came to be registered under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In response to the same, the petitioners moved a formal application dated 11.07.2023 interalia seeking a fresh spot inspection. Thereafter, the petitioners filed detailed objections on 24.07.2023, specifically stating therein that the stamp duty in respect of the sale deed in question was paid by the petitioners strictly in accordance with the applicable circle rate duly notified by the Collector, Balrampur.

¶21

The petitioner further avers that, despite a categorical plea regarding the agricultural nature of the land, no fresh inspection was conducted by the authorities to verify the ground reality. Subsequently, the District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Balrampur (Opposite Party No. 2), vide the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, summarily rejected the objections of the petitioners and assessed a deficiency of stamp duty to a tune of Rs. 3,62,700/-, along with a deficiency of registration fee of Rs. 72,540/-, in addition to the above a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed.

¶22

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2, the petitioners preferred Revision under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Learned Additional Commissioner -II, Devi Patan Mandal (Opposite Party No. 1), vide order dated 13.11.2025, affirmed the said order dated 06.05.2025 and dismissed the Revision.

¶23

It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the authorities/Opposite

¶24

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Parties have solely relied upon the alleged inspection report dated 27.07.2022, which was an ex-parte report, without providing any opportunity of participation to the petitioners. Therefore, it could not have been legally relied upon.

¶27

It is further submitted that, despite the fact that the petitioners moved an application for spot inspection as provided under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same was not considered by the Collector concerned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by not holding any inspection as provided under section 47-A (2), the authority has not only vitiated the settled principles of law on the subject but has passed the impugned order in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore could not have been lawfully relied upon.

¶28

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that a fresh spot inspection in the presence of the petitioners was absolutely necessary before passing any order in the present case, and failure of the same vitiates the impugned proceedings.

¶29

It is further submitted that no inspection, in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, was conducted despite the specific request of the petitioners; as such, the entire action and the impugned orders are not sustainable, being against the settled proposition of law.

¶30

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, at the time of execution of the sale deed in respect of the subject matter of instrument the stamp duty was paid strictly in accordance with the applicable circle rate as notified by the Collector, falling under the relevant category, i.e., at the rate mentioned at Serial No. 21. Therefore, there is no deficiency of stamp duty as has been held by the authorities concerned.

¶31

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Raziya Khatoon vs. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All 8073.

¶32

Per contra, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has opposed the writ petition.

¶33

In the short counter affidavit dated 12.02.2026 filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur, on behalf of the State-respondents, it is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners on 30.10.2022 in Suit No. 89 of 2022. In paragraph 4 of the same it is mentioned that the notice

¶34

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

was served upon petitioner no. 2 but could not be served upon petitioner no. 1, as he was reportedly out of station. It is also mentioned that the inspection report dated 27.07.2022 prepared by the Sub-Registrar, Utraula, was sent to the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Balrampur.

¶37

In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it is specifically averred that, in pursuance of the notices issued by Opposite Party No. 2 and in pursuance of the notice dated 30.12.2022 the petitioners filed objections along with vakalatnama dated 24.07.2023 before Opposite Party No. 2. However, the petitioners although filed vakalatnama and objections dated 24.07.2023 but did not appear before Opposite Party No. 2.

¶38

It is further stated that another notice dated 07.01.2025 was issued by Opposite Party No. 2 to the petitioners, which was served upon them on 12.01.2025, regarding an Scheme of Settlement floated by the State Government; but no one responded to the same.

¶39

The affidavit further avers that, pursuant to the notice dated 30.10.2022, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) examined the record and found that the report dated 27.07.2022 submitted by the SubRegistrar, Utraula, to be genuine.

¶40

Significantly, in paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit, it is candidly stated, on behalf of the State-respondents, that no spot inspection was conducted subsequent to the issuance of either notice dated 30.10.2022 or 07.01.2025.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶42

The procedure for determination of correct stamp duty on reference or suo motu has been set forth under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. For ready reference, Section 47-A is quoted herein below :

¶43

47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument.--- "(1) (a) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, immediately after presentation of such instrument and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as computed on the basis of the minimum value determined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶44

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶45

5

¶46

(b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the instrument is presented again for registration, the registering officer shall certify by endorsement thereon, that the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof and the name and the residence of the person paying them and register the same.

¶47

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause (a) in the form of impressed stamps containing such declaration as may be prescribed.

¶48

(d) If any person does not make the payment of deficit stamp duty after receiving the order referred to in clause (a) and presents the instrument again for registration, the registering officer shall, before registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon."

¶49

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as many be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument and the proper duty payable thereon.

¶50

(3) The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property not already referred to him under sub-section (1) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject for of such instrument, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon:

¶51

Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the properly"

¶52

From a reading of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899, it is evident that the Collector is empowered to determine the correct stamp duty on receipt of a reference or suo motu. If, upon inquiry and examination, the Collector finds that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the instrument is not properly stamped, he is empowered to order payment of the proper duty and also to make good the deficiency together with penalty.

¶53

From the perusal of pleading, particularly para 8 of Short Counter Affidavit dated 12.02.2026 filed on behalf of the State respondents leaves no room for doubt that the spot inspection as required under section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has not been carried out. For ready reference para 8 of the Short Counter Affidavit dated 12.02.2026 is reproduced herein below:

¶54

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶55

6

¶56

" 8. That after perusal of the record it is also appeared that no spot inspection has been carried out after issuance of either notice dated 30.10.2022 or 07.01.2025 nor petitioners appeared before the Opposite Party No.2, except filing their Vakalatnama and objection dated 24.07.2023."

¶57

The aforesaid admission strengthen the contention of the petitioner that the authorities have not cared to adhere the prescribed procedure resulting into the passing of the impugned order on the basis of an exparte report dated 27.07.2022 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Utraula.

¶58

It is well settled in law that the ex-parte report submitted by the SubRegistrar, Utraula cannot be made the sole basis for taking decision in the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶59

Further, from the pleadings, this court finds that in the instant case the inspection of the subject matter of instument after due notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamps (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, has not been done. For ready reference, Rule 7(3) of the Rules, 1997 is quoted herein below:

¶60

"Rule 7. (3): The Collector may-

¶61

a. Call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or a local authority;

¶62

b. Examine and record the statement of any public officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and

¶63

c. Inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument."

¶64

A perusal of Rule 7(3)(c) clearly mandates that the Collector is required to inspect the property after giving due notice to the parties to the instrument. 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 47-A 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 an 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 versus State of U.P. And Others, reported in 2009(7) ADJ 185 (LB) . In the instant case, it is not disputed

¶65

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶66

7

¶67

that any such inspection was carried out before passing the impugned order, nor is there any finding to the contrary.

¶68

This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha versus State of U.P . and another; reported in 2005 (98) RD 511 , has held as under:-

¶69

"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 exparte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Exparte 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."

¶70

30. This court in the case of Smt Raziya Kahtoon versus State of U.P Through Principal Secretary Stamp and Registration Lko and Ors reported in 2026(1) ADJ 273 (LB) has held as under:-.

¶71

"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.

¶72

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 versus Commissioner, reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB), observed as follows:

¶73

"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 dutypayable 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. As such, while passing orders under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector cannot rely only on the post inspection report."

¶74

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶75

8

¶76

This court in the case of Mamta Upadhyay And 2 Others versus State Of Uttar Pradesh through Its Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration Lko. And 3 Others reported in 2026(1) ADJ 762 has held as under:-

¶77

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 exparte 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 versus State of U.P. and others; reported in 2009 SCC OnLine All 91 , has held as under:

¶78

"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 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.

¶79

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 sownon 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

¶80

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶81

9

¶82

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."

¶83

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:

¶84

"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."

¶85

Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and discussions made herein above, this court in light of the settled legal position is of the considered opinion that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 stands vitiated for non-compliance of the requirement of inspection as envisaged under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The said omission to undertake such inspection strikes at the very root of the proceedings rendering the same legally unsustainable

¶86

Equally untenable is the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Second), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, which, upon a bare perusal, reflects a mechanical affirmation of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Collector, without due consideration of the grounds urged by the petitioners. The revisional authority has failed to advert to, much less adjudicate upon, the specific objections, applications, and contentions raised by the petitioners, particularly with regard to the alleged infirmities in the inspection report dated 27.07.2022. No definitive or reasoned findings have been recorded on these disputed aspects. It was incumbent upon the authority to return clear findings demonstrating due application of mind as to the correctness, legality, and propriety of the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders. The absence of such consideration renders the impugned orders arbitrary, unsustainable, and contrary to law.

¶87

Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders dated

¶88

WRIC No. 939 of 2026

¶89

10

¶90

13.11.2025 and 06.05.2025 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are, therefore, set-aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Balrampur, for a fresh consideration on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is made clear that the Collector shall proceed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with procedure as prescribed under law and more particularly Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.

¶91

Sri Sunil Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur, who is present before this Court in compliance with the order dated 09.02.2026, need not appear again unless directed by this Court.

¶92

The present petition stands allowed . No order as to costs.

¶93

February 12, 2026 Raj

¶94

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶95

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radhey Shyam Verma and Another v. Additional Commissioner II Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam Verma and Another v. Additional Commissioner II Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

Bhagauti Prasad and Another vs Virendra Kumar Tiwari and Others

Dinesh Kumar Bhatt vs Smt. Vimla Devi and Another

Srishti vs Principal Judge, Family Court District Sultanpur and another

M/S Alpine Infra Projects Ltd., Ghazizbad Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Neeraj Gupta vs Anita Singh

Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar