Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jhansi (respondent No. 3) and 6.1.2005 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division (respondent No. 2), the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said orders whereby the respondents have determined the market value of the property in question purchased by the petitioners to be Rs. 17,74,000/- on which the deficiency of stamp to the tune of Rs. 1,11,900 has also been determined and the petitioners have been required to pay the same alongwith a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and 1.5% monthly interest on the entire amount from the date of execution of the sale deed.

2. The petitioners, Anil Kumar Jain and Satish Chandra Kohli have purchased land at plots No. 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663 and 1664 measuring, in total area 0.887 hectare situated at Village Raksa, Tahsil and District Jhansi vide sale deed dated 12.4.2004 for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- though paid stamp duty at thrice the circle rate determined by the Collector. The Sub-Registrar before whom the document was executed referred it under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) observing that the correct market value has not been shown in the document. A notice was issued by respondent No. 3 on 10.5.2004 which was replied by the petitioners on 29.5.2004. The respondent No. 3 passed order on 18.10.2004 observing that the land is appurtenant to Abadi and has immediate potential for residential user and, therefore, is liable to be stamped at the rate prescribed for residential land in the area and, therefore, required the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,11,900/- towards deficiency of stamp duty alongwith penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% monthly from the date of execution of the document. The petitioners preferred revision under Section 56 but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6.1.2005.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the market value of the land in question has been increased and the demand of alleged deficiency in stamp duty has been raised only on the ground that the land has immediate potential of residential user though it is not in dispute that the land in question presently is being used for agricultural purposes and has not been declared as Abadi under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “1951 Act”). He further contended that at the time of the execution of the land as well as even thereafter it is continuously being used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the stamp duty imposed upon the petitioners is wholly illegal, based on conjectures and surmises, and even otherwise contrary to law. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Hajari Lal Sahu v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (96) RD 368, Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 (98) RD 511 and Aniruddha Kumar and another v. C.C.R.A., U.P. and another, 2000 (91) RD 566.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that it was mentioned in the sale deed also that the land is situated near Abadi and this fact was not in dispute, therefore, it has rightly been found by the authorities concerned that the land has higher market value and stamp duty was payable at the rate applicable to Abadi land and not to agricultural land. He, thus, submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record committed by the respondents and the writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard Sri Narendra Mohan assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, Advocates for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record as well as the various authorities cited at the Bar in support