Procedural non-compliance in property valuation hearings renders resulting orders invalid, necessitating fresh proceedings to ensure parties are duly notified and allowed to participate.

JUDGMENT :

SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

1. Sri Vidya Dhar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (opposite party no.1) in Revision No.173 of 2022 ( Vishal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. through Collector Gonda and another ) under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and also the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Collector, Gonda in Case No. 02197 of 2020, under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( State of U.P. vs. Vishal Singh and others ).

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings carried out by the learned Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act are vitiated being violative of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1997"). It is contended that the proceedings were instituted on the basis of report dated 07.12.2020 submitted by the Sub-Registrar (Sadar), Gonda, whereby deficiency of Rs. 12,29,010/- in stamp duty has been determined taking into account the fact that the subject matter of instrument is situated adjacent to 3-5 meter wide road and is also close to constructed house and surrounded by Abadi, while the stamp duty in respect of the same has been paid treating the subject matter as agricultural land.

4. The prime contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since 'notice' as contemplated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 was not issued or at least never served to the petitioners prior to the inspection, the petitioners were precluded from participating in the alleged inspection and the entire proceedings carried out on the basis of an ex-parte report of Sub-Registrar (Sadar) Gonda dated 07.12.2020 being against the well- settled law laid down by the Courts in catena of judgment renders the same illegal.

5. He further contended that the learned Collector, while acting on the aforesaid reference under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, vide order dated 26.07.2021, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to make spot inspection in the presence of area Lekhpal and the Revenue Inspector and in the said order dated 26.07.2021 it is categorically mentioned that advance notice should be given to the purchaser so as to enable them to remain present on the spot at the time of the said inspection. In pursuance of said order, although, a report was submitted jointly by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Sub-Registrar, Gonda on 15.11.2021 but no notice pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2021 was ever served upon the petitioners. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the report dated 15.11.2021 being an ex-parte report does not reflect correct facts. Moreover, the alleged spot inspection, if any, made is in utter disregard of the direction issued by the learned Collector vide order dated 26.07.2021, being not reliable could not have been considered in passing of the impugned orders.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Rule 9 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property), 1997 provides that 'notice' is required to be tendered to the person himself or through his authorized agent or to be sent by registered post to that person. His contention is that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1997 regarding the notice, has not been follow