JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Upmanyu Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Both the petitions have been filed against order dated 07.02.2008 passed under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby instrument of transfer of the property concerned has been found to be undervalued and, therefore, appropriate valuation along with penalty and interest has been imposed upon petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that so far as WRIT -C No. -1001426 of 2008 is concerned, the impugned order has been passed on an exparte basis without any notice to petitioner, Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh. It is submitted that although impugned order indicates notice having been issued to opposite parties but in fact notices were issued in other connected matters and not in the present case and since impugned order has been passed on ex parte basis, the same has been directly assailed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to appellate proceedings under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 directed filing of counter affidavits by opposite parties and in pursuance thereof pleadings have been exchanged. As such, it is submitted that once the petition was entertained by calling of counter affidavit and has remained pending for the past 15 years, no useful purpose would be achieved in remitting the matter for availing appellate proceedings. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Roshan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine All 1212 to buttress his submission. 4. So far as WRIT-C No.-1001263 of 2008 is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submits that although notice was received by petitioners of the said petition but the impugned order itself indicates that it has been passed without considering any submission of petitioners and therefore the said order also would come within the realm of an ex parte order and for that purpose also a petition directly would be maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 5. 5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has however raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petitions directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing remedy of appeal available to petitioners under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. It is further submitted that since the impugned orders are based on the spot inspection report, the orders necessarily pertain to disputed questions of fact, which could have been adjudicated only either by the assessing authority or in appellate proceedings and the same cannot be challenged directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as per documents brought on record by means of counter and supplementary counter affidavits, notices were adequately served upon the petitioners who deliberately did not join the proceedings and as such the assessing authority was left with no other option but to proceed in accordance with law. 6. With regard to maintainability of writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is noticed that this Court had earlier not only entertained the petitions but also called for counter affidavit, which has been filed by opposite parties, to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The petitions are pending consideration since year 2008 and therefore 15 years have already elapsed. A Division Bench of this Court in Roshan Lal (supra) while placing reliance in Lokman Singh v. Deputy General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut reported in 2006(8) ADJ 646 has held that once a petition was entertained and pleadings were exchanged, it would be improper for the court to relegate the petitioners to an alternative remedy, that too, after a period of almost ten years. The preliminary objection raised by respondents therein on that ground was rejected. 7. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the present petitions have been pending consideration of this Court for past about 15 years and in which, on the directions of this Court, pleadings were exchanged. The order impugned in both the petitions is based primarily on spot inspection report, the validity of which has been challenged by petitioners only on legal grounds. As such, no disputed question of fact arises for consideration in the present petitions. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation(supra) would also benefit petitioners. The order impugned in both the petitions is based primarily on spot inspection report, the validity of which has been challenged by petitioners only on legal grounds. As such, no disputed question of fact arises for consideration in the present petitions. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation(supra) would also benefit petitioners. Accordingly, it is held that the petitions are maintainable before this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing alternative appellate remedy. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners adverting to merits of the case, has submitted that the property in question being commercial in nature was purchased by petitioners and his two brothers jointly by means of sale deed dated 01.06.2007. Stamp duty thereupon was paid on the basis that the property contained only one floor which was being used on commercial basis but by means of impugned order passed under Section 47A(3) of the Act of 1899, the instrument of transfer was found to be undervalued since spot inspection report dated 15.06.2007 indicated the property being three-storied. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order has been passed placing reliance solely on aforesaid spot inspection report which is against the law propounded by this Court in Ram Gopal v. State of U.P. reported in 2009(27) LCD 1335. 9. It has also been submitted that prior to spot inspection report, no notice whatsoever was given to petitioners, which is in violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). It is further submitted that since the aforesaid rules are statutory and mandatory in nature, the violation thereof vitiates the impugned order as has been held by this Court in Saroj Verma v. State of U.P. & others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 230 which in turn places reliance on decisions rendered in Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. reported in (2005) 98 RD 511 as well as Ram Gopal(supra). 10. Learned State Counsel refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the order impugned clearly indicates the fact that notices were duly issued to petitioners and would be deemed to be served upon them by virtue of Rule 9(d)(iii) of the Rules of 1997. 10. Learned State Counsel refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the order impugned clearly indicates the fact that notices were duly issued to petitioners and would be deemed to be served upon them by virtue of Rule 9(d)(iii) of the Rules of 1997. It is submitted that even after due notice, the petitioners failed to respond to aforesaid notices leaving the assessing authority with no option but to proceed in accordance with law. In the alternative, it has been submitted that even if the orders are found to be exparte in nature, although such a fact has not been admitted, the matter can be remanded for a decision afresh after giving due notice to petitioners with regard to inspection and the proceedings under Section 47A/33 of the Act of 1899. It is further submitted that it was for the petitioners to have raised such an objection before the assessing authority and had also an opportunity to raise the same in appellate proceedings under Section 56 of the Act of 1899, which having not been done, benefit of the same cannot be extended to petitioners. It has also been submitted that even if the matter is remanded for consideration afresh, the petitioners would have ample opportunity to prove that extra two floors were constructed subsequent to purchase by adducing evidence such as receipts etc. to prove subsequent construction. It is submitted that the assessing authority has correctly relied upon spot inspection report which was conducted barely 15 days after execution of the sale deed. 11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from a perusal of the impugned order that leaving aside the aspect of issuance and receipt of notice in proceedings under Section 47A of the Act of 1899, the order indicates petitioners having appeared in the proceedings through counsel. It also indicates that time was taken by petitioners on various occasions for filing of their objections, which ultimately were not filed till passing of impugned order. However, the order also indicates that it has been passed placing reliance entirely on spot inspection report without adverting to any submission of petitioners. Although objections may not have been filed by petitioners but once their counsel was present, at least the stand of petitioners could have been indicated in the order itself. However, the order also indicates that it has been passed placing reliance entirely on spot inspection report without adverting to any submission of petitioners. Although objections may not have been filed by petitioners but once their counsel was present, at least the stand of petitioners could have been indicated in the order itself. The assessing authority has clearly recorded the fact that as per inspection report, the area of property purchased though the sale deed far exceeds the area indicated in the sale deed although the same has been indicated to be commercial in nature and admitted to be as such by petitioners themselves. 12. Although the petitioners have not taken the plea of violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 in the writ petition but a ground has thereafter been included in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit with regard to same. Although a rejoinder affidavit is not part of the pleadings but once it is taken on record by leave of the record, the grounds indicated therein are clearly supplemental to grounds raised in the writ petition. As such, the grounds of violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 are required to be adjudicated upon by this Court as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others reported in 2009(27) LCD 1344 . 13. So far as the aspect of violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 is concerned, this Court in decisions rendered in Saroj Verma (supra), Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha (supra) as well as Ram Gopal(supra) have clearly held the said Rules to be mandatory, violation of which would vitiate an order passed under Section 47A of the Act of 1899. In Ram Gopal(supra), it has been clearly held that proceedings under Section 47A of supplementary affidavit cannot be decided merely by placing reliance on exparte report of Tehsildar or any authority for the purpose of inspection and that prior notice of the inspection is mandatory. 14. Upon applicability of aforesaid decisions in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the opposite parties have not been able to adduce any documentary evidence regarding prior notice having been served upon petitioners before inspection of the property concerned in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. 14. Upon applicability of aforesaid decisions in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the opposite parties have not been able to adduce any documentary evidence regarding prior notice having been served upon petitioners before inspection of the property concerned in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. It is also evident from a perusal of impugned order that the same is based entirely on aforesaid exparte spot inspection report, which is clearly against the law propounded by this Court as indicated herein above. 15. So far as the submission of learned State Counsel is concerned that even if the spot inspection report is found to be exparte in nature, the case can be remanded to the authorities for consideration afresh, this Court does not find good ground to entertain such a plea, particularly after passing of 15 years from the date of execution of sale deed. Remand of this case at this stage would amount to enabling the opposite parties to make good a deficiency which is clearly against mandatory statutory provisions and cannot be permitted to be done. Further more, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Ambrish Tandon and another, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 566 as well as this Court in a Full Bench decision rendered in Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015(33) LCD 1575 have clearly held that the aspect of situation of a property has to be seen as on the date of execution of the deed and as such remanding matter for consideration of situational aspect of the property after fifteen years of execution of sale deed, would clearly be contrary to law enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. As such, the plea for remand of the case is rejected. 16. In view of discussions made herein above, it is evident that the impugned orders are against not only the statutory and mandatory provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 but also the law propounded thereupon and are therefore vitiated on that count. 17. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No.125/Stamp 2007/2470 under Section 47A/33 of the Act of 1899 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. 17. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No.125/Stamp 2007/2470 under Section 47A/33 of the Act of 1899 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. The parties to bear their own costs.