JUDGMENT : Piyush Agrawal, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 2.5.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 1263 as well as order dated 28.8.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 1911 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 49/2, admeasuring 0.2050 hectares as well as another plot bearing Khasra No. 48/2 admeasuring 0.2790 hectares through registered sale deed dated 12.4.2018 and stamp duty was paid as per prevalent rate prescribed by the Collector. Thereafter a reference was made and registered a case against the petitioner. A show cause notice dated 26.9.2020 was issued to the petitioner to which a detailed reply was submitted on 24.3.2021 along with requisite documents. She further submitted that during the pendency of the case reports were summoned by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Muzaffarnagar- respondent no.3, i.e. first report was submitted on 26.2.2022 alleging stamp deficiency of Rs. 23,14,955/-; second report was submitted on 30.3.2022 alleging stamp deficiency of Rs. 13,73,330/- and third report was submitted on 29.4.2022 alleging stamp deficiency of Rs. 16,51,093. She further submitted that against all the reports the petitioner submitted its objections but in vain. Thereafter respondent no. 3 passed an order dated 28.8.2023 holding deficiency of stamp duty against the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 2.5.2024 without considering the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were three different reports on record and without adverting all the reports, the impugned orders have been passed which are bad and liable to be quashed. In support of her submission she relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gagandeep Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others decided on 26.9.2024 . 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel support the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner the Court has perused the record. 7. From a perusal of the record it transpires that during the pendency of the case before the Additional Commissioner, three reports were submitted which fact has not been denied at any stage. 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel support the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner the Court has perused the record. 7. From a perusal of the record it transpires that during the pendency of the case before the Additional Commissioner, three reports were submitted which fact has not been denied at any stage. Record shows that the petitioner had purchased the land as agricultural land and on a small portion of it a building was standing and rest of the land was being used for agricultural purposes, relevant khasra has been brought on record at page 64 as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Record further shows that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for running the school on a small portion of the land in question as the C.B.S.E. Board has sanctioned permission to run a school. Record also shows that three different reports dated 26.2.2022, 30.3.2022 and 29.4.2022 were submitted alleging different amounts of stamp deficiency but the authorities have adverted only to the first report dated 26.2.2022. 8. The record shows that two other reports were neither taken into consideration nor any reason thereof have been assigned. Once there were three valuation reports the authority concerned ought to have give reason for not giving due weightage to the other reports where the stamp deficiency was less. Record also shows that no reason has also been assigned for taking the first report dated 26.2.2022 in which stamp deficiency was more than the other two reports. 9. Since no cogent reason has been assigned for accepting the first report dated 26.2.2022 or disbelieving / not considering the other two reports the impugned order cannot be sustained. The matter requires reconsideration. 10. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 2.5.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 1263 as well as order dated 28.8.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 1911 of 2020 are quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Bareilly, i.e., the respondent no. 3, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Bareilly, i.e., the respondent no. 3, for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no. 3.