JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, determining the stamp liability of the petitioner on the instrument in issue as well as the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, affirming the order of the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra.

3. The learned adjudicating authority/ District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra in the impugned order dated 21.06.2011 has placed exclusive reliance on a report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra, after the inspection of the disputed premises. The report dated 30.09.2009 was submitted in the aftermath of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was executed on 20.04.2009. The petitioner had tendered his objection to the aforesaid inspection report. While finding against the petitioner, the adjudicating authority held that insufficient evidence was adduced by the petitioner against the offending report. On this footing, the findings of the report dated 30.09.2009 of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra in regard to the valuation of the property was upheld. The objection of the petitioner that the constructions were raised and the crushing operations begun subsequent to the date of purchase was accordingly invalidated.

4. The learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, agreed with the findings of the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/ District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, and affirmed its order by the impugned order dated 22.03.2012.

5. Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned authorities below erred in law by relying on the report submitted by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra dated 30.09.2009. The learned authorities below illegally failed to make an enquiry under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The reliance is placed on the law laid down by this Court in Ram Khelawan Alias Bachcha son of Ram Ratan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Collector and Prashant Shukla son of Sushil Chand Shukla, reported at 2005 (2) AWC 1087.

6. The applicability of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Khelawan (supra) could not be disputed on behalf of the State.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the applicability of Ram Khelawan (supra) to the facts of this case.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below discloses that sole and exclusive reliance was placed on the report submitted by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra on 30.09.2009 while finding against the petitioner. The intendment of such inspection report is only to assist the adjudicating authority to record a prima facie satisfaction on the correctness of the valuation of the property as disclosed in the instrument. The said report merely becomes the basis of initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Once the report is disputed by the noticee, the stamp authorities cannot place reliance on the same to determine stamp liability. The adjudicating authority will have to make an independent enquiry as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 to determine the valuation of the property and on that basis assess the stamp liability payable on the instrument. This narrative is supported by good authority in point. In Ram Khelawan (supra), this Court while construing the purpose of the inspection report [Such as one made by the learned