The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mamta Upadhyay and Ors.), contained as Annexure

with the consent of the learned counsels representing the respective parties, proceeds to decide the same at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.

4. The facts in brief shorn of unnecessary details for the disposal of the present writ petition, are that the petitioners purchased a plot of land bearing plot No. 34 ad-measuring area 0.7420 hectare situated in Village Devamau, Pargana- Bijnor, Tehsil- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow vide sale-deed No. 20717/2024 executed on 20.08.2024 and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow in Register No.1, Volume No. 13279 from Pages 353 to 372 at Serial No. 20717; against the sale consideration of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- on which the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 10,71,000/- was paid by the petitioners while executing the said sale-deed.

5. Acting on a reference being made by the Sub-Registrar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, the Collector, Lucknow issued notice dated 22.01.2025 to the petitioners in the proceeding of the case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Stamp Act') which was registered as Case No.4007/2024 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay & others).

6. The submission of the petitioners is that they appeared in the aforesaid stamp-case before the Collector (respondent no. 2) through their counsel on

25.04.2025. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that on the said date, the 3 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 case was adjourned to 30.05.2025 on account of non-availability of the respondent no.2. Further submission is that again on 30.05.2025, the matter was adjourned for 26.06.2025, on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer (respondent no.2). Thereafter, on three (3) subsequent dates i.e. on 26.06.2025, 29.07.2025 & 27.08.2025, the matter could not be heard on account of abstainment of lawyers from judicial work. However on

27.08.2025, the matter was fixed for 25.09.2025.

7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that without hearing the petitioners on 25.09.2025, the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no.2) passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2025. The learned counsel has very categorically stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 and as such the same being a non-est order is not sustainable in law. The other ground of challenge pressed by the petitioners is that the impugned order dated

25.09.2025 is entirely based on an ex-parte on-spot inspection report dated

21.09.2024 submitted by the Sub-Registrar (respondent no.3). It is submitted that passing of the impugned order solely relying on the said report is in flagrant contravention of the provisions contained in the Stamp Act and the Rules of 1997. It has been submitted that the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1997') explicitly provides the procedure for an action to be taken under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Under the said Rule, it is incumbent upon the Collector to inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice as mandated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 was ever issued or at least served upon the petitioners prior to the alleged inspection of the plot in 4 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 question and the impugned order has been passed solely relying on an inspection report dated 21.09.2024 said to have been conducted by the Sub- Registrar (respondent no.3) behind the back of the petitioners and as such the impugned order having been passed on the basis of the ex-parte report dated 21.09.2024 is illegal being in utter defiance of the settled law on the subject.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the impugned order dated

25.09.2025, the plot in question was not an 'agricultural land' and the said finding is based on a flawed reasoning that no agricultural activity was going on at the time of alleged ex-parte inspection, hence the plot in question is not 'agricultural'. It is further submitted that the said finding is contrary to the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, wherein, on the basis of the report of the respondent no.4 itself, the permission to transfer was granted, treating the plot in question to be 'agricultural land'.

10. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the stamp case was decided by the Collector (respondent no.2) in post haste manner without affording any opportunity of arguments to the petitioners. The petitioners were deprived of their right to put forth their submissions, which if afforded an opportunity, could have brought factual clarity enabling the Collector (respondent no.2) to decide the matter in correct perspective. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the computation of stamp-duty in respect of the subject matter of instrument, at the time of execution of the sale-deed dated 20.08.2024, was done strictly in accordance with the general instructions issued for implementation of 'circle rates' by the Collector (respondent no.2), as such, there arises no question of 5 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 deficiency of stamp duty while executing the sale-deed dated 20.08.2024.

11. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in addition to the aforementioned illegalities in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, the other glaring infirmity in the said order is that there were two different versions of the impugned order that go to show that the same was passed without application of judicious mind. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners demonstrated before the Court that as per the certified copy of the impugned order dated

25.09.2025, a penalty amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioners, whereas no penalty amount was shown in the impugned order uploaded on the official website i.e. www.vaad.up.nic.in. The said discrepancy speaks volume of the casual approach with which the said stamp-case has been decided. Furthermore, the date of sale-deed mentioned in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 is shown as 28.08.2024 instead of

20.08.2024. Moreover, computation in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 for the first 1000 square meters of the plot in question has been made erroneously inasmuch as though the multiplier rate of Rs. 19,000/- has been used but the resultant is computed at the rate of Rs. 18,000/-. Similarly, though the notice was issued on 22.01.2025, the same has been incorrectly mentioned in the order as 20.01.2022 i.e. even before the execution of the sale-deed in question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that all the aforesaid discrepancies in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, not only indicate the lackadaisical approach in passing the same but also non application of mind on the part of the respondent no.2.

12. It is very categorically submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in addition to the aforesaid reasons which make the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 unsustainable in the eyes of law, the 6 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners rendering the same to be violative of the principles of natural justice.

13. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2025 directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

14. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents on the basis of the instructions dated 10.11.2025, informed the Court that the District Magistrate / Collector, Lucknow in exercise of the power under Section 152 of C.P.C. amended its earlier order dated 25.09.2025 and passed an amended order on 07.11.2025. The copy of the said instructions along with the photocopy of the said order dated 07.11.2025 are taken on record. For better appreciation of the case, the order dated 07.11.2025 is extracted herein-below, for ready reference: "मण्डलः- लखनऊ, जनपदः- लखनऊ न्यायालय िजलािधकारी वाद संख्या:- 3884/2025 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय आिद कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-D202510460003884 अंतगर्त धारा:- 47क, भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम, 1899 आदेश ितिथ:- 07/11/2025 अंितम आदेश संशोिधत आदेश िजला शासकीय अिधव्वा राजस्व लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदनांक 04.11.2025 अन्तगर्त धारा 152 सी०पी०सी० वास्ते आदेश संशोधन िदनांक 25.09.2025 ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया, िजसके ्षारा अवगत कराया गया िक वाद संख्या डी 202410460004007 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय आिद अन्तगर्त धारा 47 क भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 में पृ्ष 01 के अन्त में सम्पि्त मूल्यांकन के नीचे 18000/- के स्थान पर 19000/- टंिकत है व पृ्ष 02 के पैरा 03 में सम्बिन्धत उप िदनांक 20.08.2024 के स्थान पर िनबंधक की आख्यानुसार 28.08.2024 टंिकत है तथा आनलाईन अपलोड आदेश के पृ्ष 02 ्ऺस्तर 04 की पंि्व 06 में आरोिपत अथर्दण्ड टंिकत करना छू ट गया। िव्षान अिधव्वा ्षारा धारा 152 सी०पी०सी० के अन्तगर्त आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 में यथोिचत संशोधन िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। 7 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 िजला शासकीय अिधव्वा राजस्व लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ का अवलोकन िकया गया तथा उ्व ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकया गया। िविदत है िक िसिवल ्ऺि्वया संिहता 1908 की धारा 152 में उिल्लिखत है िक िनणर्यों, िडि्वयों या आदेशों में िक लेखन या गिणत सम्बन्धी भूले या िकसी आकिस्मक भूल या लोप से उसमें हुई गलितयां न्यायालय ्षारा स्व्ऺेरणा से या प्षकारों िकसी के आवेदन पर िकसी भी समय शु्ध की जा सकें गी। 1- मेरे ्षारा प्ऴावली का अवलोकन व पिरशीलन िकया गया। िसिवल ्ऺि्वया संिहता 1908 की धारा 152 में अंतिनिहत शि्वयो के अन्तगर्त पूवर् पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 के आनलाइन अपलोड आदेश में िनम्निलिखत संशोिधत को पढ़ा जाये। आदेश अतः उपरो्व िववेचना के आधार पर िवलेख संख्या 20717/2024 िदनांक 20.08.2024 को स्टाम्प अिधिनयम की धारा 47क के अन्तगर्त िवप्षी ममता उपाध्याय पत्नी डा० िवजय शंकर उपाध्याय व डा० िवजय शंकर उपाध्याय पु्ऴ स्व० राम उदय उपाध्याय िनवासीगण - 45 स्टेशन रोड, आशादीप हॉिस्पटल, अिहयापुर, जौनपुर व सुरेन््श ्ऺताप िसह पु्ऴ महेन््श ्ऺताप िसह िनवासी- 558/23/24-66, सुन्दर नगर, वी०टी०सी० आलमबाग लखनऊ पर कमी स्टाम्प शुल्क 59,93,400/- एवं कमी िनबंधन शुल्क 8,56,200/- अथर्दण्ड 75,00,000/- रू० आरोिपत िकया जाता है। इसके अितिर्व भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम की धारा 47क (4) का (4-क) के तहत आरोिपत कमी स्टाम्प शुल्क की धनरािश पर िवलेख के िनष्पादन के िदनांक से वास्तिवक अदायगी िदनांक तक 1.5 ्ऺितशत ्ऺितमाह की दर से साधारण ब्याज भी आरोिपत िकया जाता है एं व उप िनबंधक सरोजनीनगर लखनऊ को िनदरॏिशत िकया जाता है िक जब तक िवप्षी ्षारा उ्व आरोिपत धनरािश का भुगतान नही िकया जाता है तब तक वादीय भूिम का ्वय िव्वय न हो पाये। आरोिपत धनरािश राजकीय कोष में िवप्षी ्षारा 30 िदवस के अन्दर जमा न िकये जाने पर बकाया भू-राजस्व की भांित वसूल हो। 2-आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय के ्ऺथम पृ्ष की पंि्व संख्या 23 में िलिपकीय ्ऴुिटवश अंिकत 19,000/- के स्थान पर 18,000/- पढ़ा जाये तथा आदेश के ि्षतीय पृ्ष की पंि्व संख्या 16 में एवं आदेश की ्ऺथम पंि्व में अंिकत िदनांक 28.08.2024 के स्थान पर 20.08.2024 पढ़ा जायें। शेष आदेश यथावत् रहेगा तथा यह आदेश पूवर् पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 का अंग रहेगा। बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही प्ऴावली संिचत अिभलेखागार हो। िजलािधकारी/कलेक्टर, लखनऊ"

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the afore- mentioned impugned order dated 07.11.2025 has been passed behind the 8 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 back of the petitioners without even ensuring that the copy of the application on the basis of which the said amended order was passed; said to have been preferred by the District Government Counsel (Revenue), is served upon the petitioners. He further submitted that while passing the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025, the Collector (respondent no.2) has not bothered to ascertain as to whether the provision contained in Section 152 C.P.C. is even applicable to the present case.

16. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the fact remains that the interpolation in the impugned order dated 25.09.205 is pulpably evident from the fact that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners as per the certified copy thereof has been inserted in handwriting as 75,00,000/-. He contended that the entire order is a typed order wherein no such penalty has been indicated in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 which is available on the official website. He contended that even the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, purportedly for rectification of the order dated 25.09.2025 is conspicuously silent on how the substantial amount towards penalty came to be inserted by handwriting in the certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 when no such entry finds mention in the online version of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025.

17. The categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025 is nothing but to overreach judicial proceedings in the instant matter under the garb of rectification of errors in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025; that too only after this Court took cognizance of the illegalities in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, further, the same is also violative of the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997.

18. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents 9 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 has defended the impugned orders on merit. He very categorically stated that the in pursuance to the notice dated 22.01.2025, a Vakalatnama by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners was filed on 25.04.2025 before the Collector (respondent no.3) in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, having Case No. 4007/2024 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay and others), but no reply / objection was filed on their behalf. He further submitted that on 25.09.2025 when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while on the other hand, the District Government Counsel (Revenue), Lucknow appeared on behalf of the State. Thus, the Collector after hearing the arguments of the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) and on the basis of the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2025.

19. Defending the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Case No. 3884/ 2025 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay) under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the learned Standing Counsel contended that on an application dated 04.11.2025 filed under Section 152 C.P.C. for amendment in the order dated 25.09.2025, the Collector after noticing certain clerical as well as arithmetical errors in the order dated 25.09.2025, corrected the same by passing the said order dated 07.11.2025. He submitted that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel has raised objection regarding the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy provided under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material available on record. 10 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025

21. Refuting the objection on the entertainability of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others versus P. Laxmi Devi, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Sumati Nath Jain versus State of U.P. and another; reported in (2016) 131 RD 34, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under: "6. On the issue of alternative remedy, the Division Bench in Smt Vijaya Jain noticed the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi and Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan, and held as under:- "The existence of an alternative statutory remedy as has been consistently held by the Courts is not a rule of inflexible character nor is it an inviolable condition. The Courts vested with the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always viewed this rule as a self imposed restriction rather than a rule which is to be blindly adhered to and which brooks of no exception. Some of the well settled exceptions to the rule of a petitioner being relegated to an alternative remedy are where the principles of natural justice have been violated or where orders are made without jurisdiction." the aforementioned "The law as authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court judgments clearly establishes that a petitioner before the High Court is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy as a matter of rule. If in the facts of a particular case it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the order has been rendered without jurisdiction or if it is disclosed to the Court that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner and it is found that his relegation to the alternative remedy would perpetuate 11 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 injustice and cause prejudice, it is always open to this Court prerogative exercise constitutional powers and to issue an appropriate writ striking at the offending action. This principle stands extended abovementioned precedents to a case where the petitioner is foisted with an exorbitant and arbitrary demand in which case his relegation to the alternative remedy would not be justified." light of

7. We are, with respect, of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has yet again fallen in error in dismissing the writ petition and relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy."

22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also in the case of Vijaya Jain versus State of U.P. and others; reported in (2015) 129 RD 703 has been pleased to hold that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy as has been consistently held by the Courts is not a rule of inflexible character nor is it an unavoidable condition. The Courts vested with the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always viewed this rule as a self-imposed restriction rather than a rule which is to be blindly adhered to and which brooks of no exception. Some of the well settled exceptions to the rule of a petitioner being relegated to an alternative remedy are where the principles of natural justice have been violated or where orders are made without jurisdiction.

23. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated

25.09.2025 and the subsequent order dated 07.11.2025 were passed behind the back of the petitioners. From the pleadings and the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed in the absence of the petitioners depriving them the opportunity of defence and as such the same are violative of the principles of natural justice. 12 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025

24. In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as discussed herein-above, the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel in respect of the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act; is not acceptable.

25. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enshrines that a petitioner before the High Court is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy as a matter of rule; if in the facts of a particular case, it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the order has been rendered without jurisdiction or if it is disclosed to the Court that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner and it is found that his relegation to the alternative remedy would perpetuate injustice and cause prejudice, it is always open for this Court to exercise its prerogative constitutional powers and to issue an appropriate writ striking at the offending action.

26. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels and the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that there is a gross violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and the impugned orders passed by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are totally based on the ex-parte report submitted by the Sub-Registrar (respondent no.3) which is not permissible under law. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh and another versus State of U.P. and others; reported in 2009 SCC OnLine All 91, has held as under: "12. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub Registrar has referred any other material in support of 13 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 their orders. In Ram-Khelawan alias Bachha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under section 47 A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under section 47 A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293: (2008 (5) ALJ 261) (para 17), the ambit and scope of section 47 A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., 2008 (104) RD 235 and various other cases it has been held that under section 47 A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the sub-registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden. is of the sale deed learned counsel for

13. Viewed as above, it is, thus, evident that the report of the sub-registrar could not legally form basis of the impugned orders. There is no material in possession of the respondents to show that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the land in dispute was not agricultural land. The laying of little foundation subsequent consequence so far as it relates to the determination of the payment of stamp duty under section 47-A of the Act is concerned. Additionally, petitioners submits that still the land in dispute is being used for agricultural purposes. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the extract of Khasra of 1414 Fasli. In the said Khasra it is mentioned that cattle fodder has been sown on the spot. However, in the Khasra under heading category in column 18 of the said Khasra the entry is "Abadi/Shamil Jot". The use of words 'Sha Ja' have been explained by the counsel for the parties as "Shamil Jot" which means joint cultivation. At this stage, the learned standing counsel submits that entry of "Abadi" reflects that the property in dispute is not agricultural property. Along with the counter affidavit the revenue extract (Khasra) of 1412 Fasli which corresponds to the year 2007 has been annexed. From this Khasra it is evident that crop of Urd was sown in Kharif season in the 14 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 in question. However, is an entry of "Abadi/Shamil Jot" under the column 18. The said document does not relate to the date of the execution of the sale deed nor appears to have been filed before the authorities below and as such is liable to be ignored. Besides above, the fact that the crop was sown and factum of joint cultivation mentioned in the said document are also liable to be taken into consideration and cannot be ignored. The fact remains that there is no cogent or convincing material on the record to show that the land on the date of execution of the sale deed was other than the agricultural land, at least."

27. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Ambrish Tondon and another; reported in 2012 (5) SCC 566, has been pleased to recognize the right of defence to the concerned party. As the petitioners could not have got the opportunity to present their case before the Collector (respondent no.2), they deserve due opportunity.

28. From the instructions dated 10.11.2025 as are available on record, this Court finds no specific denial of the allegation made by the petitioners regarding the violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and further the allegation of not getting opportunity of hearing, this Court without adverting to the merits of the case, deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no. 2) to consider the same afresh strictly in accordance with the settled principles of law after giving full opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case on merits.

29. In view of what has been discussed herein-above, the impugned orders dated 25.09.2025 and 07.11.2025 are not sustainable in law and hereby set- aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no.2) for passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

30. It is open for the petitioners to file detailed objection(s) / reply in the said 15 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, taking all the pleas and grounds available to them. On the receipt of the said objection(s) / reply, if any, the Collector/ District Magistrate, Lucknow shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same along with certified copy of this order.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. November 21, 2025 Abhishek Gupta (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

with the consent of the learned counsels representing the respective parties, proceeds to decide the same at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.

4. The facts in brief shorn of unnecessary details for the disposal of the present writ petition, are that the petitioners purchased a plot of land bearing plot No. 34 ad-measuring area 0.7420 hectare situated in Village Devamau, Pargana- Bijnor, Tehsil- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow vide sale-deed No. 20717/2024 executed on 20.08.2024 and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow in Register No.1, Volume No. 13279 from Pages 353 to 372 at Serial No. 20717; against the sale consideration of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- on which the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 10,71,000/- was paid by the petitioners while executing the said sale-deed.

5. Acting on a reference being made by the Sub-Registrar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, the Collector, Lucknow issued notice dated 22.01.2025 to the petitioners in the proceeding of the case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Stamp Act') which was registered as Case No.4007/2024 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay & others).

6. The submission of the petitioners is that they appeared in the aforesaid stamp-case before the Collector (respondent no. 2) through their counsel on

25.04.2025. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that on the said date, the 3 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 case was adjourned to 30.05.2025 on account of non-availability of the respondent no.2. Further submission is that again on 30.05.2025, the matter was adjourned for 26.06.2025, on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer (respondent no.2). Thereafter, on three (3) subsequent dates i.e. on 26.06.2025, 29.07.2025 & 27.08.2025, the matter could not be heard on account of abstainment of lawyers from judicial work. However on

27.08.2025, the matter was fixed for 25.09.2025.

7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that without hearing the petitioners on 25.09.2025, the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no.2) passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2025. The learned counsel has very categorically stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 and as such the same being a non-est order is not sustainable in law. The other ground of challenge pressed by the petitioners is that the impugned order dated

25.09.2025 is entirely based on an ex-parte on-spot inspection report dated

21.09.2024 submitted by the Sub-Registrar (respondent no.3). It is submitted that passing of the impugned order solely relying on the said report is in flagrant contravention of the provisions contained in the Stamp Act and the Rules of 1997. It has been submitted that the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1997') explicitly provides the procedure for an action to be taken under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Under the said Rule, it is incumbent upon the Collector to inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice as mandated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 was ever issued or at least served upon the petitioners prior to the alleged inspection of the plot in 4 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 question and the impugned order has been passed solely relying on an inspection report dated 21.09.2024 said to have been conducted by the Sub- Registrar (respondent no.3) behind the back of the petitioners and as such the impugned order having been passed on the basis of the ex-parte report dated 21.09.2024 is illegal being in utter defiance of the settled law on the subject.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the impugned order dated

25.09.2025, the plot in question was not an 'agricultural land' and the said finding is based on a flawed reasoning that no agricultural activity was going on at the time of alleged ex-parte inspection, hence the plot in question is not 'agricultural'. It is further submitted that the said finding is contrary to the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, wherein, on the basis of the report of the respondent no.4 itself, the permission to transfer was granted, treating the plot in question to be 'agricultural land'.

10. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the stamp case was decided by the Collector (respondent no.2) in post haste manner without affording any opportunity of arguments to the petitioners. The petitioners were deprived of their right to put forth their submissions, which if afforded an opportunity, could have brought factual clarity enabling the Collector (respondent no.2) to decide the matter in correct perspective. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the computation of stamp-duty in respect of the subject matter of instrument, at the time of execution of the sale-deed dated 20.08.2024, was done strictly in accordance with the general instructions issued for implementation of 'circle rates' by the Collector (respondent no.2), as such, there arises no question of 5 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 deficiency of stamp duty while executing the sale-deed dated 20.08.2024.

11. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in addition to the aforementioned illegalities in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, the other glaring infirmity in the said order is that there were two different versions of the impugned order that go to show that the same was passed without application of judicious mind. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners demonstrated before the Court that as per the certified copy of the impugned order dated

25.09.2025, a penalty amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioners, whereas no penalty amount was shown in the impugned order uploaded on the official website i.e. www.vaad.up.nic.in. The said discrepancy speaks volume of the casual approach with which the said stamp-case has been decided. Furthermore, the date of sale-deed mentioned in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 is shown as 28.08.2024 instead of

20.08.2024. Moreover, computation in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 for the first 1000 square meters of the plot in question has been made erroneously inasmuch as though the multiplier rate of Rs. 19,000/- has been used but the resultant is computed at the rate of Rs. 18,000/-. Similarly, though the notice was issued on 22.01.2025, the same has been incorrectly mentioned in the order as 20.01.2022 i.e. even before the execution of the sale-deed in question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that all the aforesaid discrepancies in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, not only indicate the lackadaisical approach in passing the same but also non application of mind on the part of the respondent no.2.

12. It is very categorically submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in addition to the aforesaid reasons which make the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 unsustainable in the eyes of law, the 6 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners rendering the same to be violative of the principles of natural justice.

13. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2025 directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

14. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents on the basis of the instructions dated 10.11.2025, informed the Court that the District Magistrate / Collector, Lucknow in exercise of the power under Section 152 of C.P.C. amended its earlier order dated 25.09.2025 and passed an amended order on 07.11.2025. The copy of the said instructions along with the photocopy of the said order dated 07.11.2025 are taken on record. For better appreciation of the case, the order dated 07.11.2025 is extracted herein-below, for ready reference: "मण्डलः- लखनऊ, जनपदः- लखनऊ न्यायालय िजलािधकारी वाद संख्या:- 3884/2025 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय आिद कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-D202510460003884 अंतगर्त धारा:- 47क, भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम, 1899 आदेश ितिथ:- 07/11/2025 अंितम आदेश संशोिधत आदेश िजला शासकीय अिधव्वा राजस्व लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदनांक 04.11.2025 अन्तगर्त धारा 152 सी०पी०सी० वास्ते आदेश संशोधन िदनांक 25.09.2025 ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया, िजसके ्षारा अवगत कराया गया िक वाद संख्या डी 202410460004007 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय आिद अन्तगर्त धारा 47 क भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 में पृ्ष 01 के अन्त में सम्पि्त मूल्यांकन के नीचे 18000/- के स्थान पर 19000/- टंिकत है व पृ्ष 02 के पैरा 03 में सम्बिन्धत उप िदनांक 20.08.2024 के स्थान पर िनबंधक की आख्यानुसार 28.08.2024 टंिकत है तथा आनलाईन अपलोड आदेश के पृ्ष 02 ्ऺस्तर 04 की पंि्व 06 में आरोिपत अथर्दण्ड टंिकत करना छू ट गया। िव्षान अिधव्वा ्षारा धारा 152 सी०पी०सी० के अन्तगर्त आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 में यथोिचत संशोधन िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। 7 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 िजला शासकीय अिधव्वा राजस्व लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ का अवलोकन िकया गया तथा उ्व ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकया गया। िविदत है िक िसिवल ्ऺि्वया संिहता 1908 की धारा 152 में उिल्लिखत है िक िनणर्यों, िडि्वयों या आदेशों में िक लेखन या गिणत सम्बन्धी भूले या िकसी आकिस्मक भूल या लोप से उसमें हुई गलितयां न्यायालय ्षारा स्व्ऺेरणा से या प्षकारों िकसी के आवेदन पर िकसी भी समय शु्ध की जा सकें गी। 1- मेरे ्षारा प्ऴावली का अवलोकन व पिरशीलन िकया गया। िसिवल ्ऺि्वया संिहता 1908 की धारा 152 में अंतिनिहत शि्वयो के अन्तगर्त पूवर् पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 के आनलाइन अपलोड आदेश में िनम्निलिखत संशोिधत को पढ़ा जाये। आदेश अतः उपरो्व िववेचना के आधार पर िवलेख संख्या 20717/2024 िदनांक 20.08.2024 को स्टाम्प अिधिनयम की धारा 47क के अन्तगर्त िवप्षी ममता उपाध्याय पत्नी डा० िवजय शंकर उपाध्याय व डा० िवजय शंकर उपाध्याय पु्ऴ स्व० राम उदय उपाध्याय िनवासीगण - 45 स्टेशन रोड, आशादीप हॉिस्पटल, अिहयापुर, जौनपुर व सुरेन््श ्ऺताप िसह पु्ऴ महेन््श ्ऺताप िसह िनवासी- 558/23/24-66, सुन्दर नगर, वी०टी०सी० आलमबाग लखनऊ पर कमी स्टाम्प शुल्क 59,93,400/- एवं कमी िनबंधन शुल्क 8,56,200/- अथर्दण्ड 75,00,000/- रू० आरोिपत िकया जाता है। इसके अितिर्व भारतीय स्टाम्प अिधिनयम की धारा 47क (4) का (4-क) के तहत आरोिपत कमी स्टाम्प शुल्क की धनरािश पर िवलेख के िनष्पादन के िदनांक से वास्तिवक अदायगी िदनांक तक 1.5 ्ऺितशत ्ऺितमाह की दर से साधारण ब्याज भी आरोिपत िकया जाता है एं व उप िनबंधक सरोजनीनगर लखनऊ को िनदरॏिशत िकया जाता है िक जब तक िवप्षी ्षारा उ्व आरोिपत धनरािश का भुगतान नही िकया जाता है तब तक वादीय भूिम का ्वय िव्वय न हो पाये। आरोिपत धनरािश राजकीय कोष में िवप्षी ्षारा 30 िदवस के अन्दर जमा न िकये जाने पर बकाया भू-राजस्व की भांित वसूल हो। 2-आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 सरकार बनाम ममता उपाध्याय के ्ऺथम पृ्ष की पंि्व संख्या 23 में िलिपकीय ्ऴुिटवश अंिकत 19,000/- के स्थान पर 18,000/- पढ़ा जाये तथा आदेश के ि्षतीय पृ्ष की पंि्व संख्या 16 में एवं आदेश की ्ऺथम पंि्व में अंिकत िदनांक 28.08.2024 के स्थान पर 20.08.2024 पढ़ा जायें। शेष आदेश यथावत् रहेगा तथा यह आदेश पूवर् पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25.09.2025 का अंग रहेगा। बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही प्ऴावली संिचत अिभलेखागार हो। िजलािधकारी/कलेक्टर, लखनऊ"

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the afore- mentioned impugned order dated 07.11.2025 has been passed behind the 8 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 back of the petitioners without even ensuring that the copy of the application on the basis of which the said amended order was passed; said to have been preferred by the District Government Counsel (Revenue), is served upon the petitioners. He further submitted that while passing the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025, the Collector (respondent no.2) has not bothered to ascertain as to whether the provision contained in Section 152 C.P.C. is even applicable to the present case.

16. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the fact remains that the interpolation in the impugned order dated 25.09.205 is pulpably evident from the fact that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners as per the certified copy thereof has been inserted in handwriting as 75,00,000/-. He contended that the entire order is a typed order wherein no such penalty has been indicated in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 which is available on the official website. He contended that even the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, purportedly for rectification of the order dated 25.09.2025 is conspicuously silent on how the substantial amount towards penalty came to be inserted by handwriting in the certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 when no such entry finds mention in the online version of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025.

17. The categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second impugned order dated 07.11.2025 is nothing but to overreach judicial proceedings in the instant matter under the garb of rectification of errors in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025; that too only after this Court took cognizance of the illegalities in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, further, the same is also violative of the Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997.

18. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents 9 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 has defended the impugned orders on merit. He very categorically stated that the in pursuance to the notice dated 22.01.2025, a Vakalatnama by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners was filed on 25.04.2025 before the Collector (respondent no.3) in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, having Case No. 4007/2024 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay and others), but no reply / objection was filed on their behalf. He further submitted that on 25.09.2025 when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while on the other hand, the District Government Counsel (Revenue), Lucknow appeared on behalf of the State. Thus, the Collector after hearing the arguments of the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) and on the basis of the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2025.

19. Defending the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Case No. 3884/ 2025 (State versus Mamta Upadhyay) under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the learned Standing Counsel contended that on an application dated 04.11.2025 filed under Section 152 C.P.C. for amendment in the order dated 25.09.2025, the Collector after noticing certain clerical as well as arithmetical errors in the order dated 25.09.2025, corrected the same by passing the said order dated 07.11.2025. He submitted that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel has raised objection regarding the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy provided under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material available on record. 10 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025

21. Refuting the objection on the entertainability of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others versus P. Laxmi Devi, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Sumati Nath Jain versus State of U.P. and another; reported in (2016) 131 RD 34, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under: "6. On the issue of alternative remedy, the Division Bench in Smt Vijaya Jain noticed the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi and Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan, and held as under:- "The existence of an alternative statutory remedy as has been consistently held by the Courts is not a rule of inflexible character nor is it an inviolable condition. The Courts vested with the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always viewed this rule as a self imposed restriction rather than a rule which is to be blindly adhered to and which brooks of no exception. Some of the well settled exceptions to the rule of a petitioner being relegated to an alternative remedy are where the principles of natural justice have been violated or where orders are made without jurisdiction." the aforementioned "The law as authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court judgments clearly establishes that a petitioner before the High Court is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy as a matter of rule. If in the facts of a particular case it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the order has been rendered without jurisdiction or if it is disclosed to the Court that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner and it is found that his relegation to the alternative remedy would perpetuate 11 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 injustice and cause prejudice, it is always open to this Court prerogative exercise constitutional powers and to issue an appropriate writ striking at the offending action. This principle stands extended abovementioned precedents to a case where the petitioner is foisted with an exorbitant and arbitrary demand in which case his relegation to the alternative remedy would not be justified." light of

7. We are, with respect, of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has yet again fallen in error in dismissing the writ petition and relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy."

22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also in the case of Vijaya Jain versus State of U.P. and others; reported in (2015) 129 RD 703 has been pleased to hold that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy as has been consistently held by the Courts is not a rule of inflexible character nor is it an unavoidable condition. The Courts vested with the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always viewed this rule as a self-imposed restriction rather than a rule which is to be blindly adhered to and which brooks of no exception. Some of the well settled exceptions to the rule of a petitioner being relegated to an alternative remedy are where the principles of natural justice have been violated or where orders are made without jurisdiction.

23. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated

25.09.2025 and the subsequent order dated 07.11.2025 were passed behind the back of the petitioners. From the pleadings and the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed in the absence of the petitioners depriving them the opportunity of defence and as such the same are violative of the principles of natural justice. 12 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025

24. In the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as discussed herein-above, the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel in respect of the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act; is not acceptable.

25. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enshrines that a petitioner before the High Court is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy as a matter of rule; if in the facts of a particular case, it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the order has been rendered without jurisdiction or if it is disclosed to the Court that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner and it is found that his relegation to the alternative remedy would perpetuate injustice and cause prejudice, it is always open for this Court to exercise its prerogative constitutional powers and to issue an appropriate writ striking at the offending action.

26. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels and the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that there is a gross violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and the impugned orders passed by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are totally based on the ex-parte report submitted by the Sub-Registrar (respondent no.3) which is not permissible under law. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh and another versus State of U.P. and others; reported in 2009 SCC OnLine All 91, has held as under: "12. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub Registrar has referred any other material in support of 13 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 their orders. In Ram-Khelawan alias Bachha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under section 47 A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under section 47 A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293: (2008 (5) ALJ 261) (para 17), the ambit and scope of section 47 A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., 2008 (104) RD 235 and various other cases it has been held that under section 47 A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the sub-registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden. is of the sale deed learned counsel for

13. Viewed as above, it is, thus, evident that the report of the sub-registrar could not legally form basis of the impugned orders. There is no material in possession of the respondents to show that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the land in dispute was not agricultural land. The laying of little foundation subsequent consequence so far as it relates to the determination of the payment of stamp duty under section 47-A of the Act is concerned. Additionally, petitioners submits that still the land in dispute is being used for agricultural purposes. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the extract of Khasra of 1414 Fasli. In the said Khasra it is mentioned that cattle fodder has been sown on the spot. However, in the Khasra under heading category in column 18 of the said Khasra the entry is "Abadi/Shamil Jot". The use of words 'Sha Ja' have been explained by the counsel for the parties as "Shamil Jot" which means joint cultivation. At this stage, the learned standing counsel submits that entry of "Abadi" reflects that the property in dispute is not agricultural property. Along with the counter affidavit the revenue extract (Khasra) of 1412 Fasli which corresponds to the year 2007 has been annexed. From this Khasra it is evident that crop of Urd was sown in Kharif season in the 14 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 in question. However, is an entry of "Abadi/Shamil Jot" under the column 18. The said document does not relate to the date of the execution of the sale deed nor appears to have been filed before the authorities below and as such is liable to be ignored. Besides above, the fact that the crop was sown and factum of joint cultivation mentioned in the said document are also liable to be taken into consideration and cannot be ignored. The fact remains that there is no cogent or convincing material on the record to show that the land on the date of execution of the sale deed was other than the agricultural land, at least."

27. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Ambrish Tondon and another; reported in 2012 (5) SCC 566, has been pleased to recognize the right of defence to the concerned party. As the petitioners could not have got the opportunity to present their case before the Collector (respondent no.2), they deserve due opportunity.

28. From the instructions dated 10.11.2025 as are available on record, this Court finds no specific denial of the allegation made by the petitioners regarding the violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and further the allegation of not getting opportunity of hearing, this Court without adverting to the merits of the case, deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no. 2) to consider the same afresh strictly in accordance with the settled principles of law after giving full opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case on merits.

29. In view of what has been discussed herein-above, the impugned orders dated 25.09.2025 and 07.11.2025 are not sustainable in law and hereby set- aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Collector, Lucknow (respondent no.2) for passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

30. It is open for the petitioners to file detailed objection(s) / reply in the said 15 WRIC No. 10629 of 2025 proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, taking all the pleas and grounds available to them. On the receipt of the said objection(s) / reply, if any, the Collector/ District Magistrate, Lucknow shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same along with certified copy of this order.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. November 21, 2025 Abhishek Gupta (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench