JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj, Baharich and also the order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, rejecting his Appeal. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased land of Gata No.522 ad-measuring 0.02 dec. situated in village Chakpihani, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, through a registered sale deed on 01.07.1995 and paid stamp duty @ Rs.15/-per sq. feet as per the circle rate of the area concerned. The sale deed was duly stamped and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Kaiserganj and the petitioner’s name was also recorded in the revenue records. In the month of November, 1999, the Ameen of Kaiserganj Tehsil approached him for depositing an amount of Rs.24,691/- towards deficiency in stamp duty and penalty in pursuance of the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj under the Stamp Act. 4. The petitioner inspected the file and after getting a certified copy of the order dated 19.07.1999, he preferred a Revision under Section 56 of the Stamp Act before the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the respondent no.2 has passed the ex parte order and at the time of spot inspection, the respondent no.2 has not given any information or notice to the petitioner nor any spot inspection report or memo was made available on record. The petitioner disputed the findings recorded by the respondent no.2 that the land in question was siutated 800 mtrs. from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the P.W.D. Map, the land was situated 1.6 kms. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road and stamp duty was paid according to the circle rate of the area in question. 6. from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the P.W.D. Map, the land was situated 1.6 kms. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road and stamp duty was paid according to the circle rate of the area in question. 6. It was submitted that under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, if the Collector after determination of the market value of the property, comes to the conclusion that its value has not been correctly set forth, he could only direct payment of deficiency in the amount of duty as a result of such determination, but he cannot impose any penalty on account of deficiency in Stamp Duty. 7. It has been submitted that respondent no.2 has determined the deficiency in stamp duty and has also imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of deficiency in Stamp Duty i.e. Rs.12,310.15/-. The deficiency in Stamp Duty + Penalty together amounted to Rs.24,691/- 8. It has been submitted by Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the Appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner all such grounds were taken but they were not considered and his Revision has been arbitrarily rejected only on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Act has been followed by the Assessing Authority and as per the rate of the area in question in respect of Rs.15/-per sq. feet., a duty of Rs.130/-per sq. feet was paid. 9. In pursuance of the orders impugned, the Tehsil Authorities had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner including taking steps to arrest him and also to auction the property in question. However, this Court as an interim measure had initially stayed the arrest of the petitioner and later on also stayed the recovery proceedings. 10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the content of annexure-2 that there is specific statement made therein that the purchaser was informed, but he failed to appear and that on-spot inspection was done of the property in question and it was found that agricultural activities were going on the plot and that it was situated only 800 mtrs. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. The respondent no.2 has imposed the liability to pay Stamp Duty only on the basis of the circle rate and according to him any property which was situated within 1k.m. range of Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road would be liable to stamp duty @ Rs.130/-per sq. foot. Accordingly, deficiency found in stamp duty was determined as Rs.12,310.50/-and a penalty equivalent to same amount as the deficiency was directed to be paid by the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out three grounds to challenge to the orders impugned. According to him, specific averment has been made in paragraphs-5, 8 and 9 to the writ petition that the property in question is situated at a distance of 1.6 kms. and not at a distance of 800 mtrs. from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. Also, no penalty could have been imposed and only demand that the Assessment Authority could have made was with regard to payment of deficiency, if any, found in the stamp duty as the sale deed in question was entered into on 01.07.1995 and the power to impose penalty came into effect through the Government Order dated 28.07.2000, only on such conveyance deeds that were registered after 01.09.1998. The other ground raised in the writ petition is with regard to the question that no notice was served upon the petitioner before the spot inspection was made by the Assessing Authority and also that after the on spot inspection, a memo had to be prepared including the map of the area in question, which was not done. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed by the State Respondent that there is no specific reply of paragraphs-5, 8 and 9 to the writ petition. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by him on 15.09.2003 bringing on record the Government Order dated 28.07.2000 wherein after referring to the provisions of Section 47-A sub-Clause 4, the discretion is cast upon the Collector to ask for proper stamp duty to be paid and also to impose penalty on a person failing to do so. It was in this Government Order that for the first time after referring to the provisions of Section 47-A, the Government had made a provision for imposition of penalty also. It was clarified that since the provision of penalty under Section 47-A, sub Clause 1, became effective from 01.01.1998, any instrument which was registered before that day and was found deficient in payment of Stamp Duty would not be liable for payment of penalty thereon. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his argument has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1998 (Supp) RD 523, wherein this Court was considering two questions:- “(i) Whether in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, penalty can also be imposed if the Collector holds that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument and consequently there is deficiency in stamps duty? (ii) Whether the limitation of four years as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act is for making a reference by a Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the subsection or it is for intimation of proceedings by the Collector?” 15. In response to the first question, the Full Bench had observed that the language of Section 47 sub Section 4 is clear that the Collector/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) does not have any power to impose penalty in such proceedings. Under this provision only power vested in the Collector was to determine the market value of the property and if he finds that the duty paid on the instrument in question is less than that payable on the correct market value of the property, he may order that the difference may be realized from the party to the instrument. The Court observed that law regarding such matters is well settled. The power to impose penalty must be conferred by the Statute itself. The language of Section 47-A alone can be seen and such a power cannot be inferred by implication or by reference to some general words contained in the Rules. In the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the Collector is not empowered to impose penalty. 16. The power to impose penalty must be conferred by the Statute itself. The language of Section 47-A alone can be seen and such a power cannot be inferred by implication or by reference to some general words contained in the Rules. In the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the Collector is not empowered to impose penalty. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2005 (23) LCD 1681 , wherein this Court has observed in paragraph-24 thus:- “24. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex parte report of Tehsildar or other Officer. Ex parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule 7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must; also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty.” 17. This Court finds from the pleadings on record that no specific reply has been given by the State Respondents in their counter affidavit to the grounds raised for challenge in paragraphs-5, 8 and 9 of the writ petition, nor has any dispute been raised regarding the applicability of the Government Order dated 28.07.2000 in so far as it clarifies the position regarding the power to impose penalty along with power to recover deficiency in stamp duty. 18. This Court has also perused the orders impugned and finds from the order dated 19.07.1999 that only a bald statement has been made therein that notice was issued and despite service, the vendee had failed to file any explanation and therefore proceedings were taken ex parte against him. If the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Authority regarding the property in question to be situated within 800 mtrs. If the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Authority regarding the property in question to be situated within 800 mtrs. of Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road taken on its face value, is to be taken as correct, at least spot inspection memo and a rough sketch map ought to have been appended to and referred in the order itself. Neither there is any reference of on spot inspection report or sketch map in the order impugned, nor the same has been filed in the counter affidavit by the respondents to refute the allegation made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 19. This Court also finds from the order passed in the Revision that only the statement made by the Assessing Authority’s order has been rephrased although in a different language. There is no application of mind by the Revisional Authority as to whether the procedure prescribed for determination of deficiency and for imposition of penalty had been followed by the Assessing Authority. Consequently, both the orders dated 19.07.1999 and 26.11.2001 are liable to be set aside and are therefore set aside. 20. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequences to follow.