Heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Singh, learned Counsel of Zila Parishad, Moradabad, the respondent No. 1 and Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. , representing the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. For recovering as arrears of land revenue a sum of Rs. 26,000 towards deficient stamp duty and penalty, a citation dated 16th September, 1992 has been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the said amount. A photo copy of the citation is Annexure III to the petition. 3. A notice dated 1st June, 1991 was also issued to the petitioner from the office of Zila Parishad, Moradabad, the respondent No. 1, intimating him that there was deficiency in payment of stamp duty on an agreement alleged to have been executed in the year 1989 in connection with a contract for collection of fee from vehicles due to the respondent No. 1. The notice also intimates that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty. The total amount payable by the petitioner, according to the notice, is Rs. 26,000. The notice required the petitioner to deposit the money and warned that in case of default the same would be realised through the agency of Collector. 4. The citation and the notice are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Counsel of the petitioner contends that no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was ever executed. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that no proceeding contemplated by law was ever initiated against the petitioner. He also contends that the petitioner was never given any opportunity of defending himself. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submits, the impugned citation and notice are bad and liable to be quashed. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Zila Parishad, Moradabad. The respondents No. 2,3,4 and 5 have not filed counter-affidavit. 7. The averment of the petitioner that no written agreement was executed between him and the respondent No. 1 has not been denied by the respondent No. 1, specifically or by necessary implication. The respondent No. 1 has also not disputed that the proceedings for determination of the liability of the petitioner regarding the payment of deficient stamp duty never took place. 8. The respondent No. 1 has also not disputed that the proceedings for determination of the liability of the petitioner regarding the payment of deficient stamp duty never took place. 8. In order to ascertain from the Collector, Moradabad whether any proceedings for realisation of the deficient stamp duty and imposition of penalty under the Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner, the Court, on 4th August, 1999, granted time to the learned Standing Counsel for filing an affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel states that despite due communication no response is forthcoming either from the Collector, Moradabad or any of the other respondents. 9. Thus, the assertions of the petitioner that no written agreement was executed between him and the respondent No. 1, that no proceedings for determination of the liability under the Stamp Act and for imposition of penalty ever took place; and that the petitioner was never given any opportunity being uncontroverted, are accepted to be correct and admitted. 10. In the absence of any proceedings in accordance with law, the impugned notice and citation are held to be bad in law, and liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 1st June, 1991 and the citation dated 16th September, 1992 are hereby quashed. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .