JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned State counsel appearing for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 29.03.2006 passed under Section 47A(3) of the U.P. Stamp Act, 1899 as well as order dated 04.10.2007 passed in appeal under Section 56 of the said Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners purchased a flat having area of 1473 sq. feet situated on third floor of a building constructed on plot no.B-3/122, Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar by means of sale deed executed on 06.11.2003.

4. It is submitted that upon presentation of the deed of transfer, the same was registered but referred in terms of Section 47A(3) of the Act after spot inspection was conducted and report dated 18.11.2003 submitted indicating the property in question to have commercial value though Stamp Duty was paid in terms of the property having residential value. The proceedings under Section 47A(3) of the Act culminated in imposition of additional stamp duty along with penalty, which was challenged by the petitioners in Appeal No.552 of 2005-2006 under section 56 of the Act which has also been rejected by means of order dated 04.10.2007.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a perusal of the impugned order dated 29.03.2006 passed under Section 47 of the Act makes it apparent that the proceedings have been decided ex parte against petitioners and is based only on the spot inspection report indicating the property in question to have commercial value. It is submitted that against the order, petitioners filed appeal specifically taking the plea that order passed under Section 47 of the Act was ex parte in which reasonable opportunity of being heard was never provided to him. Further ground which was taken in appeal was that spot inspection was conducted without giving prior notice to the petitioners as is required to be done in terms of Rule 7 (iii)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and since it was mandatory on the part of authorities to have given prior notice before spot inspection of property in question, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that very ground. Learned counsel has also submitted that even otherwise the authorities are required to record their subjective satisfaction in terms of Section 47(3) of the Act with regard to correctness of the market value of the property which is subject matter of the instrument of transfer. It is submitted that no such subjective satisfaction having been recorded either under section 47 or even other Section 56 of the Act, the orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind and are also against the mandatory statutory provision of Section 47(3) of the Act. Learned counsel has adverted to judgment of Coordinate Bench in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha versus State of U.P. Ors. reported in 2005(2) JCLR 610 (Allahabad) to buttress his submission.

6. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that there is no error in the orders challenged in present writ petition since the authorities were correct in relying on the spot inspection report for which purpose prior notice as envisaged under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Act was not required to be given to petitioner since the aforesaid provision was inapplicable in present case. It is submitted that there is material difference in provisions pertaining to under valuation of instrument sought to be registered under section 47A(i)(a) and the provisions of Section 47 A(3) of the Act. It is submitted that while under valuation of an instrument under section 47 A(i) of the Act pertains to inquiry required to be done by the Collector prior to registration of instrument of transfer, Section 47 A (3) of the Act pertains to examination of the instrument of transfer in order to ascertain under valuation after its registration. It is submi