Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Malhotra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities in proceedings under Section 47-A of the (Indian) Stamp Act. The impugned orders are dated 25.9.2004 and 28.2.2006.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased plot No. 541 area .012 hectare situated in village Khujji, Tahsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur by means of sale deed dated 1.7.2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the date of purchase and registration of the sale deed, the land was recorded in the revenue records as agricultural land. A copy of the Khasra has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

4. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by a person alleging that the petitioner had short paid the stamp duty. The petitioner had paid @Rs.1,10,000/- per decimal, whereas he ought to have paid 4.50 lakhs per decimal.

5. The Sub Registrar, Kerakat vide report dated 14.7.2003 reported the deficiency in stamp duty. The petitioner had filed an objection on 26.2.2004 against the report dated 14.7.2003. The Tahsildar of Kerakat gave a report on 29.6.2004 by which he reported that the land in question was agricultural land but was situated right next to the main road. The respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector passed an order dated 25.9.2004 by which the proposed deficiency of Rs. 2,92,960 + 10,000 was imposed as penalty along with additional of Rs. 600/- totalling to Rs. 3,03,560 to be recovered at 1.5% per month.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2004, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the (Indian) Stamp Act before the Commissioner, Varanasi, who allowed the appeal partly and reduced the amount to a total of Rs. 2,84,077/- to be recovered at the rate of 1.5% interest per month.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the orders are wholly arbitrary and illegal because they have imposed the additional Stamp Duty on the basis of commercial rates, whereas the land at the time of purchase was recorded as agricultural land and in view of the provisions of Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it would remain as agricultural land unless a declaration was issued to the effect that the user of the land has been changed by showing the notification under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even otherwise, the land had been purchased as per the rate fixed by the Collector, which are appended as Annexure-III which indicates that the agricultural land, which was adjacent to the road, within 15 meters of the road would be sold at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per hectare.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the report of the Tahsildar, who gave a report on 29.6.2004 along with the map, showing the land to be within 12 k.m. of the road. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rates as fixed by the Collector had been applied at the time of the purchase of the said plot and the petitioner had not indulged in any escapement in the payment of stamp duty and was not liable to pay any additional stamp duty.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions of this Court as reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1087, Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha v. State of U.P. and another and 2006 All. C.J. 437 in the case of Smt. Sushila Verma v. State of U.P. and others, and in both these decisions, the Court has held that the stamp duty is to be paid on the nature of the land at the time of purchase and not on its future or potential use. In the impugned orders, the authorities below have both fixed the additional stamp duty wrongly and arbitrarily, on the basis of future and potential use. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court in par