JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2005 passed by Respondent No. 3 and annexed as Annexure No.1 to the instant Writ Petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the instant Writ Petition.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs 1,64,675/-deposited by the petitioner on 27.07.2005 through Treasury Challan-209(1) along with 12% compound interest from 27.04.2005 till the date of actual payment.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with recovery in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.02.2014 (as contained in Annexure-2 to this Writ Petition) or the impugned Order dated 15.04.2005 (as contained in Annexure-1 to this Writ Petition) and not to issue any consequential recovery notice/citation/certificate with respect to the land bearing Gata No. 81, Area:0.240 ½ Hectare, situated at Village Sohramau, Pargana Gausinda Parsanad, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao.”

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that a plot of land was purchased by him through a registered sale deed on 10.09.2004. The land was registered as agricultural land in the revenue records and consequently stamp duty at agricultural rates was paid. The petitioner claims to have received a show cause notice from the respondent no. 3 alleging evasion of stamp duty under the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899). It is contended that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a report dated 04.10.2004 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Hasanganj District Unnao, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner claims to have filed his reply to the show cause notice on 15.03.2005, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, and the respondents no. 3 passed an order dated 15.04.2005, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner had been required to pay a stamp duty of Rs 3,29,350/-alongwith penalty and interest. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner is Rs 1,64,675/-.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected vide the order dated 26.02.2014, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. Being aggrieved with both the orders, the instant petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.04.2005 would indicate that the basis of the impugned order is the ex-parte report dated 04.10.2004 which had been submitted by the Sub-Registrar Hasanganj, District Unnao. It is contented that although the petitioner while filing his reply has indicated in paragraph 7 that on legal advice the trees standing on the plot in question could not be valued yet by no stretch of imagination can the same be said to be acceptance of the ex-parte report dated 04.10.2004.

6. He contends that the authority concerned while passing the impugned order dated 04.10.2004 has placed reliance on the said report and has not given any finding with respect to his own assessment while passing the order impugned by which the petitioner has been found to have paid less stamp duty and requiring the petitioner to pay stamp duty at the rates as indicated in the impugned order. He also contends that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

7. Elaborating his argument learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though it is not mandatory for the competent authority