The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of statutory rules in property valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, particularly the requirement for prior notice before inspection and the implications of an ex parte order based solely on a spot inspection report.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Upmanyu Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Both the petitions have been filed against order dated 07.02.2008 passed under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby instrument of transfer of the property concerned has been found to be undervalued and, therefore, appropriate valuation along with penalty and interest has been imposed upon petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that so far as WRIT -C No. -1001426 of 2008 is concerned, the impugned order has been passed on an exparte basis without any notice to petitioner, Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh. It is submitted that although impugned order indicates notice having been issued to opposite parties but in fact notices were issued in other connected matters and not in the present case and since impugned order has been passed on ex parte basis, the same has been directly assailed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to appellate proceedings under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 directed filing of counter affidavits by opposite parties and in pursuance thereof pleadings have been exchanged. As such, it is submitted that once the petition was entertained by calling of counter affidavit and has remained pending for the past 15 years, no useful purpose would be achieved in remitting the matter for availing appellate proceedings. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Roshan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine All 1212 to buttress his submission.

4. So far as WRIT-C No.-1001263 of 2008 is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submits that although notice was received by petitioners of the said petition but the impugned order itself indicates that it has been passed without considering any submission of petitioners and therefore the said order also would come within the realm of an ex parte order and for that purpose also a petition directly would be maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, reported in(1998) 8 SCC 1.

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has however raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petitions directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing remedy of appeal available to petitioners under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. It is further submitted that since the impugned orders are based on the spot inspection report, the orders necessarily pertain to disputed questions of fact, which could have been adjudicated only either by the assessing authority or in appellate proceedings and the same cannot be challenged directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as per documents brought on record by means of counter and supplementary counter affidavits, notices were adequately served upon the petitioners who deliberately did not join the proceedings and as such the assessing authority was left with no other option but to proceed in accordance with law.

6. With regard to maintainability of writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is noticed that this Court had earlier not only entertained the petitions but also called for counter affidavit, which has been filed by opposite parties, to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The petitions are pending consideration since year 2008 and therefore 15 years have already elapsed. A Division Bench of this Court in Roshan Lal (supra) while placing reliance in Lokman Singh v. Deputy General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut reported in 2006(8) ADJ 646 has held that once a petition was entertained and pleading