Mohit vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp Lko.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, without taking into consideration any of the objections raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order on 16.09.2019 in exercise of his power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short ‘the Stamp Act’) in Case No.00472/2018 (State Versus Mohit) whereby the deficiency of stamp duty in respect of the sale-deed in question was determined as Rs.2,19,500/- and Rs.3020/-, respectively along with simple interest @ 1.5 per cent per month from the date of the execution of the sale-deed.

8. The petitioner preferred an application on 30.09.2019 seeking recall of the order dated 16.09.2019. The said application of the petitioner was entertained by the respondent No. 3 with the correction of some clerical mistakes in the figure of the amount and the same was disposed of with the same findings and liabilities for payment on the petitioner fixed on the petitioner vide earlier order dated 16.09.2019.

9. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dated 16.09.2019 and

03.01.2020 by way of a revision under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp 3 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 Act, 1899. The said revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated

24.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya.

10. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2024, the petitioner preferred a Recall application dated 08.10.2024 before the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya. The said Recall application was also dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya vide order dated 15.01.2025.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the authorities namely Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya as well as the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioner inasmuch as they failed to notice the serious illegalities in the impugned orders and the procedural flaws having been committed while passing the impugned orders. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and

03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in exercise of its power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act are patently illegal being violative of the procedure as provided under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. His contention is that the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, acting upon the reference made by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, proceeded to pass the impugned orders without holding the inquiry as mandated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case, the inspection as contemplated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (in short ‘the Rules’) was never carried out by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar before passing the impugned orders. It is contended that the impugned orders have been passed relying upon the ex-parte report dated 19.04.2018 submitted by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional authority also did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and in the most mechanical manner, dittoed the orders passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. This Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 granted time to the learned 4 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents to seek specific instructions as to on what date, the inspection as per the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 was conducted.

14. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents stated at the Bar that he has received instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ambedkar Nagar under the joint signature of D.I.G. Stamp, Ayodhya and the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar dated 06.12.2025.

15. The copy of the aforesaid instructions is taken on record. For ready reference, the contents of the said instructions are extracted here-in- below: /?o _ m/?/?;/, ;?9?-?/, ;) o)+I) ;) ?9-9I-9 _/?-10047 =?} 2025 /K?9- ………/?I -)?/ oo 9?]/ = 3 m/ ……….. ?=+I+ )+/- o-O) 9 )9m +9K} ?9 /?? ? /O ?=+I+ I 9 9O _/?/ ?- -)

1. /9 ? =-}/?) ?9 /?? ? /O /?o m/?/?;/ O /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ?9? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? )) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?)9I+ I ?-?- ?=?/ ?=?? ?-mo +9 +K_? (query) I /I 9Im 2. /9 ? /?o m/?/?;/ ?9? +??9- /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ? 9I9 - ? )IO o?9- 9Im

3. On a pointed query being made by the Court from learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, as to on what date, the inspection pursuant to Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 was conducted, he prays for and is granted a day's time to seek specific instructions on that point from Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

4. List this case on 08.12.2025.

3. /9 ? /?o m/?/?;/ O /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ?9? ?=?? ?-mo I /I +K_? (query) O 9o-m/ /O =- 9?)? ? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? ) 5 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 ) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?)9I+ 9o-m/I K ?o++I/?)9I+ _/? +}?=;I +9 +;m/ ?-;OK /O )9K +?/I /Im

4. /9 ? =-}/?)  9+ /O + ?)-m/ , ;?;+I9 ? ;? o-O) 9 )9 ?9? ?==??/- 9o+?m ? }-;I/ ?)9I+ ? /? /?, ? 9 I _/? ?/)?

19.04.2018 /O ;O ? /? /? 9I ? /?I O ?=}/ ?=;O 9 _/? 3477/2017 + I K - ?/)?

29.11.2017 ?9? ?? 9 _/? 1326 ?/o 9 -? 1.651 9O0 /O 9O 0.131 9O0 ? }/ ? /? /? 9Im ?? 9 _/? 1326 ?/o 9 -? 1.651 9O0 /O / ?) -)O y 9Km /M O +9 ?=}I- 9 -O /O -I ?)/?}+ ?/} ; 99? 9I --? -? o}I 9O O9I y 9Im ?=}I- 9 -O O +K9--/ ?) /K?9- (}O -?/ /?I), } / ?) ?=}I- ?O /O 9I ?}-- 9I, +?/-O- - -9?o9 = 9? ?+?;, m9-/ ?) 9 -K? ?/?}, /?+-o;? 9?9;?; = 9I9?;?; m

5. /9 ? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? )) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- + ?9K K 9K?- 9 O ;O]9 ?9? ? /? ?)O =?;? ?)9I+ ?_ (Optional) 9I ]/K? 9/O ?m/ "may" /I} y 9Im /9 ?=/?) }?o+ =?/ I 9I)=?/I O /M9?) ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ? 9I ?)9I+ 9O 9o-?m/- 9I, K + ?)-m/ , ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?-?/ }-;I/ ?)9I+ O 9o-m/ /O ;?K )9K 9K-? 9Im + ?)-m/ , ;?;+I9 I }-;I/ ?)9I+ _/? ?/)?

19.04.2018  ?-?/ ?  _/? -I, ? 9 O ?;/O /?I K K )K?9 ?//? ?)? =/ )9K -?m

6. /9 ? ?9 /?? ? 9?99I) = -;9I) 9I = +K?+I/ )9K 9Im /?I /?o m/?/?;/ 9O ? 9I )I-K? K +?)O ? ?/ ?9I )9K 9I - ?9 /?? ? m/?/ ?9- /O 9/ ?)9}- ? /O ?)O /K_/ 9Im ?/)? 06 ?/9o-9, 2025”

16. In para 3 of the said instructions, it is categorically stated that as per the available records, there is no mention of any inspection made by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in accordance with Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.

17. The law is well settled that the Collector is mandatorily required to inspect the property in terms of the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 upon proceedings being drawn up under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Further, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides that acting on a reference, the Collector is required to determine the market value of the property for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon. Provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act clearly indicate that while determining market value of the property on the basis 6 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 of instrument of transfer, the Collector has to satisfy himself with regard to the correctness of the market value and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. Further, the provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act clearly prescribe that prior to the passing of order in terms of aforesaid provision, the Collector has to satisfy himself which, in fact, would mean that he has to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the market value of the property. Furthermore, he is also required to record reasons to believe that market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, whereafter he is also required to determine the market value of the property and duty payable thereon.

18. Further, the Collector in exercise of power under Section 47-A (3) of the Act is required not to rely only on the spot inspection report but also to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the under-valuation of the instrument of transfer. As such, while passing orders under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector cannot rely only on the post-inspection report.

19. From the perusal of the instructions dated 06.12.2025 as quoted here- in-above, it is evident that in the instant case, the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar has not carried out any inspection before passing the orders and has passed the impugned orders only on the basis of ex-parte report dated

19.04.2018 submitted by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, as such, the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar are violative of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rules framed thereunder.

20. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sumati Nath Jain versus State of U.P. and another, reported in 2016 (2) ADJ 533 (DB) has held as under: "16. Section 47-A (3) as a plain reading of the provision would indicate comes into operation if the Collector has before him material which may lead him to believe that the market value of the property comprised in an instrument has not been truthfully disclosed. In the 7 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 present case the Collector proceeded in the matter solely on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar dated 7 February 2012. This report doubted the valuation of the property on the ground that in the area abutting it, various residential houses had come up and that Greater NOIDA had become a development hub. Bearing in mind the location of the plot and its likely use, the Sub Registrar opined, it would be inappropriate to value the property at agricultural rates. We find that the very bedrock upon which the opinion of the Sub Registrar based his report was faulty and could not have consequently formed the basis for further action under section 47-A (3). the Khasra of

17. We may note that on the date of execution of the land was admittedly recorded as instrument agricultural. In the property remained unchanged throughout and continued to represent for agricultural land as recorded purposes. The respondents were in our opinion wholly initiating proceedings based on an unjustified unsubstantiated assumption that the property in future was likely to be put to non-agricultural use.

18. The perceived or presumed use to which a buyer may put the property in the future can never be the basis for adjudging its value or determining the stamp duty payable. The Act, we may note is a fiscal statute. The taxable event with which it concerns itself is the execution of an instrument which is chargeable to duty. The levy under the statute gets attracted the moment an instrument is executed. These propositions clearly flow from a plain reading of the definition of the words "chargeable", "executed" and "instrument" as carried in the Act. In the case of an instrument which creates rights in respect of property and upon which duty is payable on the market value of the property comprised therein, since the tax liability gets fastened immediately upon execution it must necessarily be quantified on the date of execution. The levy of tax or its quantum cannot be left to depend upon hypothetical or imponderable facets or factors. The value of the property comprised in an instrument has to be adjudged bearing in mind its character and potentiality as on the date of execution of the instrument. For all the aforesaid reasons we fail to find the existence of the essential jurisdictional facts which may have warranted the invocation of the powers conferred by section 47-A (3). We are therefore of the firm opinion that the initiation of proceedings as well as the impugned order based upon a presumed future use of the property for residential purposes was wholly without jurisdiction and clearly unsustainable. Dealing with this aspect of the matter and after noticing the 8 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 consistent line of precedent on the subject the Division Bench in Smt. Vijaya Jain observed: "This Court on more than one occasion has held that the market value of the land is not liable to be determined with reference to the use to which a buyer intends to put it in future. The market value of the property is to be determined with reference to its character on the date of execution of the instrument and its potentiality as on that date." XXX XXX XXX law enunciated The above principles of aforementioned judgments have been consistently followed by this Court. We however find that the order of the Collector relies upon no evidence which would support imposition of residential rates on a property which was stated to be agricultural on the date of execution of the instrument."

21. The law is well settled that the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, particularly Rule 7 provides the procedure that on receipt of a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument. Rule 7 very clearly provides that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector or its authority are required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex-parte report of the registering authority. The same view has been taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Versus State of U.P. And Others, reported in 2009(7) ADJ 185 (LB).

22. In view of the deliberations and observations made here-in-above and also the above-cited judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the revisional orders dated

24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, suffer from serious error of law. These orders are based merely on an ex-parte report of the Sub Registrar, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar dated 19.04.2018, which lacks the support of any credible material or independent verification. The impugned orders are 9 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 founded on irrelevant presumptions and an erroneous appreciation of facts. Furthermore, the authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The instructions received from the State- respondents categorically provides that there is no mention of inspection having been carried out by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in the manner as provided under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, rendering the entire proceedings for determination of deficiency in stamp duty legally unsustainable.

23. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand and the law on the subject as discussed here-in-above, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, and the orders dated 24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.

24. In view of the fact that the procedure in passing the impugned orders has been found violative of the relevant rules, including Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, and the mandatory inquiry as required under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was never conducted, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back. The law is well settled that the value of the land can be determined only with reference to the date of execution. As the sale-deed was executed in the year 2017, any inspection to be carried out in the year 2025 or thereafter would be of no legal consequence for determining the market value as it existed on 29.11.2017.

25. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated

16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, and the orders dated 24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, are hereby set aside. A direction in the nature of Mandamus is issued to the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar (respondent No. 3) to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the present litigation pursuant to the impugned orders, within one month from the date of production of a 10 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 certified copy of this order. If the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund.

26. The writ petition is allowed.

27. No order as to costs. December 8, 2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, without taking into consideration any of the objections raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order on 16.09.2019 in exercise of his power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short ‘the Stamp Act’) in Case No.00472/2018 (State Versus Mohit) whereby the deficiency of stamp duty in respect of the sale-deed in question was determined as Rs.2,19,500/- and Rs.3020/-, respectively along with simple interest @ 1.5 per cent per month from the date of the execution of the sale-deed.

8. The petitioner preferred an application on 30.09.2019 seeking recall of the order dated 16.09.2019. The said application of the petitioner was entertained by the respondent No. 3 with the correction of some clerical mistakes in the figure of the amount and the same was disposed of with the same findings and liabilities for payment on the petitioner fixed on the petitioner vide earlier order dated 16.09.2019.

9. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dated 16.09.2019 and

03.01.2020 by way of a revision under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp 3 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 Act, 1899. The said revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated

24.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya.

10. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2024, the petitioner preferred a Recall application dated 08.10.2024 before the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya. The said Recall application was also dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya vide order dated 15.01.2025.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the authorities namely Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya as well as the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioner inasmuch as they failed to notice the serious illegalities in the impugned orders and the procedural flaws having been committed while passing the impugned orders. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and

03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in exercise of its power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act are patently illegal being violative of the procedure as provided under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. His contention is that the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, acting upon the reference made by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, proceeded to pass the impugned orders without holding the inquiry as mandated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case, the inspection as contemplated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (in short ‘the Rules’) was never carried out by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar before passing the impugned orders. It is contended that the impugned orders have been passed relying upon the ex-parte report dated 19.04.2018 submitted by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional authority also did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and in the most mechanical manner, dittoed the orders passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. This Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 granted time to the learned 4 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents to seek specific instructions as to on what date, the inspection as per the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 was conducted.

14. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents stated at the Bar that he has received instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ambedkar Nagar under the joint signature of D.I.G. Stamp, Ayodhya and the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar dated 06.12.2025.

15. The copy of the aforesaid instructions is taken on record. For ready reference, the contents of the said instructions are extracted here-in- below: /?o _ m/?/?;/, ;?9?-?/, ;) o)+I) ;) ?9-9I-9 _/?-10047 =?} 2025 /K?9- ………/?I -)?/ oo 9?]/ = 3 m/ ……….. ?=+I+ )+/- o-O) 9 )9m +9K} ?9 /?? ? /O ?=+I+ I 9 9O _/?/ ?- -)

1. /9 ? =-}/?) ?9 /?? ? /O /?o m/?/?;/ O /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ?9? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? )) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?)9I+ I ?-?- ?=?/ ?=?? ?-mo +9 +K_? (query) I /I 9Im 2. /9 ? /?o m/?/?;/ ?9? +??9- /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ? 9I9 - ? )IO o?9- 9Im

3. On a pointed query being made by the Court from learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, as to on what date, the inspection pursuant to Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 was conducted, he prays for and is granted a day's time to seek specific instructions on that point from Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

4. List this case on 08.12.2025.

3. /9 ? /?o m/?/?;/ O /O? ?/)?

03.12.2025 ?9? ?=?? ?-mo I /I +K_? (query) O 9o-m/ /O =- 9?)? ? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? ) 5 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 ) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?)9I+ 9o-m/I K ?o++I/?)9I+ _/? +}?=;I +9 +;m/ ?-;OK /O )9K +?/I /Im

4. /9 ? =-}/?)  9+ /O + ?)-m/ , ;?;+I9 ? ;? o-O) 9 )9 ?9? ?==??/- 9o+?m ? }-;I/ ?)9I+ ? /? /?, ? 9 I _/? ?/)?

19.04.2018 /O ;O ? /? /? 9I ? /?I O ?=}/ ?=;O 9 _/? 3477/2017 + I K - ?/)?

29.11.2017 ?9? ?? 9 _/? 1326 ?/o 9 -? 1.651 9O0 /O 9O 0.131 9O0 ? }/ ? /? /? 9Im ?? 9 _/? 1326 ?/o 9 -? 1.651 9O0 /O / ?) -)O y 9Km /M O +9 ?=}I- 9 -O /O -I ?)/?}+ ?/} ; 99? 9I --? -? o}I 9O O9I y 9Im ?=}I- 9 -O O +K9--/ ?) /K?9- (}O -?/ /?I), } / ?) ?=}I- ?O /O 9I ?}-- 9I, +?/-O- - -9?o9 = 9? ?+?;, m9-/ ?) 9 -K? ?/?}, /?+-o;? 9?9;?; = 9I9?;?; m

5. /9 ? oo }?o+ (9o+?m ? /K/? )) ?)//?=;I, 1997 O ?)// 7(3)(c) O m-}- ?=/??)- + ?9K K 9K?- 9 O ;O]9 ?9? ? /? ?)O =?;? ?)9I+ ?_ (Optional) 9I ]/K? 9/O ?m/ "may" /I} y 9Im /9 ?=/?) }?o+ =?/ I 9I)=?/I O /M9?) ;O]9 ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ? 9I ?)9I+ 9O 9o-?m/- 9I, K + ?)-m/ , ?9? ? /O ?)O =?;O ?-?/ }-;I/ ?)9I+ O 9o-m/ /O ;?K )9K 9K-? 9Im + ?)-m/ , ;?;+I9 I }-;I/ ?)9I+ _/? ?/)?

19.04.2018  ?-?/ ?  _/? -I, ? 9 O ?;/O /?I K K )K?9 ?//? ?)? =/ )9K -?m

6. /9 ? ?9 /?? ? 9?99I) = -;9I) 9I = +K?+I/ )9K 9Im /?I /?o m/?/?;/ 9O ? 9I )I-K? K +?)O ? ?/ ?9I )9K 9I - ?9 /?? ? m/?/ ?9- /O 9/ ?)9}- ? /O ?)O /K_/ 9Im ?/)? 06 ?/9o-9, 2025”

16. In para 3 of the said instructions, it is categorically stated that as per the available records, there is no mention of any inspection made by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in accordance with Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.

17. The law is well settled that the Collector is mandatorily required to inspect the property in terms of the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 upon proceedings being drawn up under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Further, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides that acting on a reference, the Collector is required to determine the market value of the property for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon. Provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act clearly indicate that while determining market value of the property on the basis 6 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 of instrument of transfer, the Collector has to satisfy himself with regard to the correctness of the market value and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. Further, the provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act clearly prescribe that prior to the passing of order in terms of aforesaid provision, the Collector has to satisfy himself which, in fact, would mean that he has to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the market value of the property. Furthermore, he is also required to record reasons to believe that market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, whereafter he is also required to determine the market value of the property and duty payable thereon.

18. Further, the Collector in exercise of power under Section 47-A (3) of the Act is required not to rely only on the spot inspection report but also to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the under-valuation of the instrument of transfer. As such, while passing orders under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector cannot rely only on the post-inspection report.

19. From the perusal of the instructions dated 06.12.2025 as quoted here- in-above, it is evident that in the instant case, the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar has not carried out any inspection before passing the orders and has passed the impugned orders only on the basis of ex-parte report dated

19.04.2018 submitted by the Sub Registrar, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, as such, the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar are violative of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Rules framed thereunder.

20. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sumati Nath Jain versus State of U.P. and another, reported in 2016 (2) ADJ 533 (DB) has held as under: "16. Section 47-A (3) as a plain reading of the provision would indicate comes into operation if the Collector has before him material which may lead him to believe that the market value of the property comprised in an instrument has not been truthfully disclosed. In the 7 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 present case the Collector proceeded in the matter solely on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar dated 7 February 2012. This report doubted the valuation of the property on the ground that in the area abutting it, various residential houses had come up and that Greater NOIDA had become a development hub. Bearing in mind the location of the plot and its likely use, the Sub Registrar opined, it would be inappropriate to value the property at agricultural rates. We find that the very bedrock upon which the opinion of the Sub Registrar based his report was faulty and could not have consequently formed the basis for further action under section 47-A (3). the Khasra of

17. We may note that on the date of execution of the land was admittedly recorded as instrument agricultural. In the property remained unchanged throughout and continued to represent for agricultural land as recorded purposes. The respondents were in our opinion wholly initiating proceedings based on an unjustified unsubstantiated assumption that the property in future was likely to be put to non-agricultural use.

18. The perceived or presumed use to which a buyer may put the property in the future can never be the basis for adjudging its value or determining the stamp duty payable. The Act, we may note is a fiscal statute. The taxable event with which it concerns itself is the execution of an instrument which is chargeable to duty. The levy under the statute gets attracted the moment an instrument is executed. These propositions clearly flow from a plain reading of the definition of the words "chargeable", "executed" and "instrument" as carried in the Act. In the case of an instrument which creates rights in respect of property and upon which duty is payable on the market value of the property comprised therein, since the tax liability gets fastened immediately upon execution it must necessarily be quantified on the date of execution. The levy of tax or its quantum cannot be left to depend upon hypothetical or imponderable facets or factors. The value of the property comprised in an instrument has to be adjudged bearing in mind its character and potentiality as on the date of execution of the instrument. For all the aforesaid reasons we fail to find the existence of the essential jurisdictional facts which may have warranted the invocation of the powers conferred by section 47-A (3). We are therefore of the firm opinion that the initiation of proceedings as well as the impugned order based upon a presumed future use of the property for residential purposes was wholly without jurisdiction and clearly unsustainable. Dealing with this aspect of the matter and after noticing the 8 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 consistent line of precedent on the subject the Division Bench in Smt. Vijaya Jain observed: "This Court on more than one occasion has held that the market value of the land is not liable to be determined with reference to the use to which a buyer intends to put it in future. The market value of the property is to be determined with reference to its character on the date of execution of the instrument and its potentiality as on that date." XXX XXX XXX law enunciated The above principles of aforementioned judgments have been consistently followed by this Court. We however find that the order of the Collector relies upon no evidence which would support imposition of residential rates on a property which was stated to be agricultural on the date of execution of the instrument."

21. The law is well settled that the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, particularly Rule 7 provides the procedure that on receipt of a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument. Rule 7 very clearly provides that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Collector or its authority are required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex-parte report of the registering authority. The same view has been taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Versus State of U.P. And Others, reported in 2009(7) ADJ 185 (LB).

22. In view of the deliberations and observations made here-in-above and also the above-cited judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the revisional orders dated

24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, suffer from serious error of law. These orders are based merely on an ex-parte report of the Sub Registrar, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar dated 19.04.2018, which lacks the support of any credible material or independent verification. The impugned orders are 9 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 founded on irrelevant presumptions and an erroneous appreciation of facts. Furthermore, the authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The instructions received from the State- respondents categorically provides that there is no mention of inspection having been carried out by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in the manner as provided under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, rendering the entire proceedings for determination of deficiency in stamp duty legally unsustainable.

23. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand and the law on the subject as discussed here-in-above, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, and the orders dated 24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.

24. In view of the fact that the procedure in passing the impugned orders has been found violative of the relevant rules, including Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, and the mandatory inquiry as required under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was never conducted, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back. The law is well settled that the value of the land can be determined only with reference to the date of execution. As the sale-deed was executed in the year 2017, any inspection to be carried out in the year 2025 or thereafter would be of no legal consequence for determining the market value as it existed on 29.11.2017.

25. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated

16.09.2019 and 03.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, and the orders dated 24.04.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya, are hereby set aside. A direction in the nature of Mandamus is issued to the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar (respondent No. 3) to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the present litigation pursuant to the impugned orders, within one month from the date of production of a 10 WRIC No. 10047 of 2025 certified copy of this order. If the amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund.

26. The writ petition is allowed.

27. No order as to costs. December 8, 2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench