JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioners impeaching the order dated 23.01.2003, passed by the Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich, whereby certain amount of deficiency in stamp duty along with penalty has been imposed on the petitioner regarding two sale deeds dated 19.07.2001 and 07.09.2001.The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.03.2003, passed by the Stamp Collector, whereby the restoration application moved by the petitioner against the order dated 23.01.2003 was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Stamp Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, which too, has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) by means of the order dated 18.07.2003. This appellate order is also under challenge in this petition. 4. It appears that in respect of two sale-deeds dated 19.07.2001 and 07.09.2001 in respect of certain land having an area of 198 and 144 sq ft. respectively, a report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Mahsi on 11.09.2002 on the basis of which the proceedings under Section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner. The impugned order states that on registration of case on the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the Tehsildar, Mahsi, notices were issued to the petitioner which were served on him, however, the petitioner chose not to file any objection or reply to the said notices, neither did she appear before the Stamp Collector and consequently an ex-parte order was passed on 23.01.2003. The restoration application moved by the petitioner was also rejected by the Stamp Collector stating therein that the notice was duly served on the petitioner, however, she did not appear despite the notice, hence, there was no question of restoring case and hearing the same afresh. 5. Without making any observation as to the service of notice on the petitioner, what is noticeable is that in the impugned order dated 23.01.2003 is based on the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 11.09.2002. No other material has been relied upon by the Stamp Collector while passing the impugned order, as such the said report assumes significance. 5. Without making any observation as to the service of notice on the petitioner, what is noticeable is that in the impugned order dated 23.01.2003 is based on the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 11.09.2002. No other material has been relied upon by the Stamp Collector while passing the impugned order, as such the said report assumes significance. From the perusal of the impugned order it does not transpire that the petitioner was, ever, served with a copy of the report of the Tehsildar submitted by him on 11.09.2002, though it is the same report which is the sole basis of finding the documents to be deficient so far as the stamp duty is concerned. Since the petitioner was never served with a copy of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, though the same has been made sole basis of the impugned order, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Needless to say that if a person is visited with certain adverse consequences on the basis of some material, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to confront the person with the material relied upon by him while passing the order adversely affected person concerned. Any deviation from the said procedure would be the violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2003, passed by the Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich in Case No.495/2002, as is contained in annexure no.5 to the writ petition, the order dated 25.03.2003, passed by the Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich in Restoration Application No.17, as is contained in annexure no.7 to this writ petition and the order dated 18.07.2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Administration) dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 56(1-A) of Indian Stamp Act, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 9. The Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue shall also furnish a copy of the report submitted by the Tehsildar on 11.09.2002 inviting the objections from the petitioner to the said report. 9. The Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue shall also furnish a copy of the report submitted by the Tehsildar on 11.09.2002 inviting the objections from the petitioner to the said report. The aforesaid exercise under this order shall be concluded by the competent authority/Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Bahraich within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions contained in Section 47-A of the Act empowering the Stamp Collector to impose penalty was introduced by means of U.P. Act No.38 of 2001 which came into force with effect from 20.05.2002 and the sale-deeds in question were executed prior to the said date i.e. 19.07.2001 and 07.09.2001, as such the authority to impose penalty and interest was not available with the respondents. The aforesaid plea will also be available to the petitioner to be raised at the time the proceedings are initiated afresh against him under this order. 11. There will be no order as to costs.