Procedural fairness mandates that orders under the Indian Stamp Act cannot rely solely on ex-parte inspection reports without proper notice and inspection as per statutory rules.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 06.04.2018 passed under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; and the order dated 30.06.2016 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') whereby the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 24,47,860/-including penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the Bhumidhari Plot No. 758/1 as well as plot no. 888 by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.08.2014 after paying the requisite stamp duty as per the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate.

4. It is further submitted that in pursuance of some report submitted by Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh dated 16.10.2014, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 had been initiated against the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 has been passed by the Collector on the basis of ex-parte report submitted by the Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh, without following the procedure as per Rules 7(3)(C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1997),as the Collector had never issued any notice and made any spot inspection.

6. It is further submitted that the against the order dated 16.02.2015, a revision was preferred with a pleading that the order has not been passed in accordance with law and no inspection was made. The said submission made by the petitioner before the appellate authority had not been considered and no findings has been given on the same and passed the impugned order reiterating the order passed by the Collector, under Section 47 A of the Act, 1899.

7. It is further submitted that the order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 has been passed on the basis of the alleged inspection report filed by respondent no. 4 which could be considered for the purposes of initiating the proceedings under Section 47 A, but the order cannot be passed under Section 47 A by placing reliance on the said report, whereas the impugned order under Section 47 A has been passed merely on the basis of the alleged inspection report submitted by respondent no. 4, without making any inspection by the respondent no. 3 as per Rule 7(3)(C), Rules, 1997.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh has submitted that there is no requirement of any notice to the petitioner prior to the inspection made by the Assistant Registrar but he was unable to dispute that the provision of Rule 7(3)(C) of the Rules, 1997 was not complied with before passing of the impugned order under Section 47A of the Act, 1899.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties going through the record of the case and the relevant statutory provisions and the law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur and Anr. [2005 (23) LCD 1681] and the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors. in Writ C No. 1004498 of 2005, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the impugned order under Section 47 A has been passed merely on the basis of the alleged inspection report submitted by respondent no. 4, whereas as per the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha (supra), wherein it has been held by this Court that the ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. However, for deciding the case, no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation