The market value for stamp duty is determined by the land's current use and its immediate potential for commercial or residential development. A spot inspection conducted without notice is a procedural irregularity that does not invalidate the assessment absent proof of substantive prejudice to the property owner.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Samarth Sinha and Sri Vijay Sinha, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Sri P.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present bunch of three writ petitions are arising out of a case of deficiency of stamp duty for 3 sale deeds purchased by the petitioner of different area of a single arazi.

3. In the sale deed, respective land in question was shown as an agricultural land and accordingly stamp duty and registration fee was paid. However, on inspection under Section 47A (3) of Indian Stamps Act, respective reports were submitted by concerned A.D.M that stamp duty is to be determined considering respective land in dispute as non agricultural land being situated at Link Marg, Vista Farmhouse Colony.

4. It was further found that respective lands in dispute were not used for agriculture purpose. Surrounding lands were sold as small residential plots, there was a boundary wall wherein more than 60000 bricks were used and accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioner whereby he was asked to submit respective reply.

5. During proceedings, District Magistrate himself conducted an inspection on 23.7.2025 and for reference, one of the report is reproduced hereinafter: Other two reports are of similar nature:

6. In the reports, it was not mentioned as to whether petitioner was issued notice to remain present since his presence was not noted.

7. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the notice, which he submitted through his Advocate wherein he has stated that lands in question are used for agriculture purpose, it is not part of any colony, it is surrounded by other agricultural land and boundary wall was constructed to protect the land.

8. At this stage Court takes note that sale deed was executed by the petitioner being Director of Contour Buildcon Private Ltd.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the District Magistrate passed respective orders dated 30.07.2025 and held that there was a deficiency of stamp duty with a specific finding that respective land in question was situated at Link Marg of Vista Farmhouse Colony and it is not used for agriculture purpose and being surrounded by lands used for residential purpose and about 60000 bricks were used to construct the boundary wall of lands in dispute. Accordingly, respective impugned orders of similar nature were passed and for reference one of the impugned order is mentioned hereinafter:-

10. The petitioner thereafter submitted respective appeals however all the appeals were decided by separate orders dated 27.01.2026.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court by filing present bunch of writ petitions.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspection was not conducted in terms of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 and the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997. It was conducted in the absence of petitioner. No notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the inspection. The District Magistrate has passed the impugned order only on the basis of report without making any independent application of mind that respective land in questions are used only for the purpose of agriculture. Land was not declared ‘Abadi’ under Section 80 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.

13. The deficiency of stamp duty was wrongly determined on basis of small sale exemplars and he has placed reliance on a judgment passed in Anuj Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. a