JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 18.11.2006 passed under Section 47A of the STAMP ACT , 1899 (for short 'the Act') whereby instrument of transfer dated 16.4.2003 has been found to be undervalued while finding property to be residential in nature although stamp duty as per agricultural rate has been deposited. Also under challenge is order dated 9.10.2007 rejecting recall application as well as order dated 11.8.2008 passed by revisional authority in Revision No.1 of 2007 under Section 56 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that the same are completely non-speaking in nature and neither the objection filed by petitioner in proceeding under Section 47-A of the Act nor submissions in the memorandum of the revision have been considered by either of the authorities. It is submitted that in fact orders passed are clearly ex parte in nature and are based on an alleged spot inspection report, which also is against mandatory provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (for short 1997 Rules'), since no prior notice was ever given to petitioner before such spot inspection was ever conducted. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgements rendered in the case of Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and others , Misc. Single No.987 of 2010 decided on 7.2.2020 and Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 SCC Online All 2247.

4. Learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that when a doubt arose regarding valuation of land, spot inspection was done by the Assistant Sub Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh from which it could be ascertained that the property in question was residential and not agricultural and was, in fact, situated adjacent to the residential house of vendee. It is thus submitted that in view of situation of property in question, no error was committed by authorities in valuing the property as residential.

5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated against petitioner on report of Assistant Sub Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh in 2004 indicating the property in question to be residential in nature. The impugned order passed under Section 47-A of the Act is completely based on the aforesaid report. A perusal of aforesaid order also indicates that none of the submissions raised by petitioner in his objection have been adverted to by authorities concerned. The order, in fact, is quite non-speaking in nature and does not indicate any independent application of mind to the report submitted.

6. Same is situation with impugned order passed in revision under Section 56 of the Act, which, in fact, is even more taciturn in nature and does not even advert to the report and dismisses the revision only recording the fact that order passed under Section 47-A of the Act does not require any interference. None of the grounds taken by petitioner in memorandum of appeal have been adverted to.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works