ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the order dated 28.8.2017 passed by Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Hapur in Case No. D201711730338 imposing deficiency of stamp duty etc. has been challenged. Also under challenge is the order dated 22.5.2018, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) IIIrd, Meerut Division, Meerut in Stamp Revision No. 00705 of 2018.

3. The issue is with regard to instrument No. 2570 dated 18.3.2016 pertaining to sale of a land situate at Khasra No. 265 having an area 0.225 hectare in village Gandu Nagla, Tehsil Garh Mukteshwar, District Hapur.

4. It is stated that the land in question is an agricultural land, however, the Sub-Registrar, Garh Mukteshwar submitted a report dated 30.4.2016 alleging deficiency of stamp duty, whereafter, proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 [The Act] were initiated. It is stated that though a show cause notice was reported to be sent, but it was never served on the petitioner nor any report of service was placed on record. The ex-parte order dated 28.8.2017 was passed imposing deficiency of stamp duty etc. The revision filed by the petitioner met with failure by means of impugned order dated 22.5.2018.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly, no notice was served on the petitioner and the order passed by the Additional Collector is against the principles of natural justice. Secondly, it is contended that the land in question is not residential, but agricultural as is reflected in the revenue record. The contention is that the ex-parte report dated 30.4.2016 has been relied upon by the Additional Collector without considering the mandate of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. [1997 Rules] It is further contended that the assessment of valuation under the provisions of Section 47-A(3) are required to be done as per the market value, however, the valuation has been done on the basis of minimum rate fixed by the Collector of the district under the provisions of 1997 Rules.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has strongly opposed the writ petition and has stated that there is a minimum rate fixed by the authority which at the relevant point of time was Rs. 2200/- per sq. meter as is reflected from page 10 of the counter affidavit. It is also contended that the report of the Sub-Registrar clearly reflected the land in question as residential and, therefore, the averment in the petition to the contrary is incorrect.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition, it appears from the order sheet of proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, that on several dates the proof of notice was stated to be unavailable. From the order passed on 27.7.2017, it appears that the petitioner was stated to have appeared in another case and he was informed regarding the proceedings under Section 47A of the Act. From the order of the Additional Collector, it appears that this information so given to the petitioner itself was taken to be deemed service of the show cause notice.

8. It has been held in the case of Smt. Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others (dated 1.9.2015) passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 598 of 2015 as follows:

“In our opinion a notice of this nature must necessarily disclose to the person concerned the basis and the reasons upon which the Collector has come to form an opinion that the market value of the property has