JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th March, 2018 passed under Section 47A of STAMP ACT 1899 as well as order dated 11th December, 2019 passed under Section 56 of the Act in appeal whereby additional stamp duty has been imposed upon petitioner with regard to two of the plots purchased by him by means of deed of transfer dated 22nd August 2015, which has been treated to be residential in nature although it has been indicated as agriculture in instrument of transfer.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of sale deed dated 22nd August, 2015, portions of four properties indicated in gata Nos. 495 Ka, 818, 819 and 820 in the village in question were purchased by petitioner. It is submitted that since the properties at the time of purchase were being used for agriculture purpose, stamp duty in accordance therewith was paid but thereafter reference under Section 47-A of the Act was made for treating the properties to be residential in nature. It is submitted that reference has been made in view of spot inspection report by Deputy Registrar dated 18th January 2016.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the authorities have erred in placing reliance on the ex parte spot inspection report dated 18th January, 2016 as well as the subsequent spot inspection report dated 27th September, 2017. Two pronged arguments have been raised against aforesaid spot inspection reports to the effect that aforesaid spot inspection was conducted very much after execution of deed of transfer whereas the same was required to be conducted and nature of property purchased was also required to be considered at the time of execution of deed not thereafter. Another ground taken is with regard to violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1997')inasmuch as no prior notice whatsoever was given to petitioner prior to conducting the spot inspection. It is thus submitted that spot inspection having been conducted quite some time after execution of deed, could not have formed the basis of orders impugned since they indicated situation of properties quite subsequent to the purchase of properties and not as on the date of execution of deed.

5. Learned counsel has also submitted that specific objections had been taken by the petitioner to the spot inspection report to submit that there was no construction on the property as on the date of execution of deed but the said objections have not been adverted to in the impugned order and burden of proof has been incorrectly placed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that even otherwise spot inspection having not been conducted by the Collector himself in terms of aforesaid Rules, can not be the sole basis of passing of impugned order. On that score, petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachchha v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (23) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1681.

6. It is submitted that even the appellate authority has not adverted to pleadings raised in appeal and has also rejected the same only on the basis of spot inspection report.

7. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that perusal of subsequent inspection report clearly indicates presence of petitioner at the time o