Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Yashwant Varma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the revisional order of the Chief Controlling Revisional Authority (CCRA) passed under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act, allowing the revision of the State and holding that the petitioner was liable to pay the deficiency of stamp duty. The petitioner has also prayed for the quashing of the circular dated 12.3.1994 issued by the District Magistrate which provided that in case the land was being purchased for industrial purposes, in that event, the stamp duty would be payable at three times the rate prescribed for agricultural land. For facility, the writ petition No. 56505 of 2005 is being made the leading case and the facts mentioned therein are being taken into consideration.

3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and had purchased various pieces of land, in village Todarpur, in district Saharanpur, for the purpose of setting up a sugar factory.

4. The petitioner purchased agricultural land by means of a sale-deed dated 22.7.94. Since the land was agricultural in nature, the petitioner paid the stamp duty in accordance with the circle rate issued by the District Magistrate. On 13.2.1995, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), issued a notice under Section 47-A read with Section 33(4) of the Stamp Act to the petitioner, to show cause, as to why the deficiency of stamp duty should not be levied. In the notice, it was alleged that the petitioner had purchased the land for industrial purposes and that the market value of the land for industrial purpose came to Rs. 1,51,312.50 per bigha on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 54,312.50 was payable as stamp duty, whereas, the petitioner had only paid a sum of Rs. 25,250/-. It is alleged that the aforesaid notice was issued on the basis of a circular dated 12.3.1994 issued by the District Magistrate which provided that in case the land was being purchased for business or for industrial purposes, in that event, the stamp duty was payable at three times the rate prescribed for agricultural land.

5. The petitioner, in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, filed a detailed objection denying the allegations made in the notice. The petitioner contended that there was no deficiency of stamp duty and that the stamp duty was paid in accordance with the market value of the land and in accordance with the circle rate issued by the District Magistrate.

6. The Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), by his order dated 8.1.96, discharged the notice and held that there was no deficiency of stamp duty on the conveyance in question and that the petitioner had paid the stamp duty in accordance with the market value which was more than the prescribed circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate. The Authority further found that there was no industrial unit in the vicinity and that the land purchased was agricultural land and that adequate stamp duty was paid by the petitioner.

7. In May 2000, i.e., after more than 4 years, the State Government preferred a revision under Section 56(2) of the Act which contained no explanation of the inordinate delay in filing the Revision. The petitioner filed their objections contending that there was a huge delay in the filing of the revision and that no explanation had been given for condoning the delay. However, the Revisional Authority, by an order dated 6.6.2000, condoned the delay in the interest of justice. Subsequently, the Revisional Authority, by an order dated 20.7.2005, allowed the revision holding that there was a deficiency of stamp duty and that the petitioner was liable to pay three times the rates prescribed for agricultural land, since the petitioner had purchased the land for an industrial purpose. The Re