Honble Prakash Krishna, J.—The petitioners mother purchased a piece of land bearing Arazi No. 88/0-813 hectare, Arazi No. 136/0-109 hectare, Arazi No. 137/0-388 hectare and Arazi No. 147/0-085 Hectare situate in Village Khujjhi, Pargana and Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur by means of a registered sale deed dated 23.6.2003 for a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/-. The stamp duty however, thereon was paid on the presumption of market value of Rs. 16,00,000/-.

2. The sale deed was impounded for deficiency of stamp duty and the matter was referred to the Collector to find out the market value of the property covered under the said instrument and the stamp duty payable thereon as provided for under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. A report from the Tahsil authority was called for. The Upper Zila Adhikari after spot inspection submitted a report dated 10.10.2003. It was found that the land in question is situate one kilometer away from road 5 kilometer away from Railway Station and 10 kilometer away from town area. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, respondent No. 3 after taking into consideration the said report found that the instrument in question is deficit in the stamp duty by Rs. 1,78,880/-. By the order dated 13.3.2006 the petitioner was directed to pay the aforesaid duty along with interest @ 1.5% per annum. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 39 of 2006 before the C.C.R.A./Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi who by the impugned order dated December 4, 2007 dismissed the appeal.

3. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant raised several issues in the present petition. He submits that even from the report dated 10.10.2003, which is the basis of the impugned orders, it is evident that the land in question is agricultural land. The relevant revenue records do also show that the land in question was agricultural land on the relevant date i.e. 23.6.2003 when the sale deed was executed and it continues to be same even today as is apparent from the Khasras of the subsequent years.

4. The further submission is that the stamp duty was paid as per the circle rate fixed by the Collector under the provisions of the Stamp Act but the authorities below while calculating the payability of quantum of the stamp duty have wrongly applied the rate per square meter which is applicable to land other than agricultural land i.e. the land purchased for residential and commercial purposes. The sum and substance of the argument is that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty as per the circle rate fixed by the Collector and there being no material to hold that the instrument in question is deficiently stamped, the additional demand for stamp duty is uncalled for and is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supports the impugned orders and submits that from the report dated 10.10.2003, it is evident that the instrument was deficiently stamped and therefore demand for payment of additional stamp duty perfectly justified.

6. Considered the respective submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. As noticed herein before, it is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the land in question after paying a sale consideration of Rs. 6,16,000/-and has paid the stamp duty on the presumption of market value of the said land at Rs. 16,00,000/-.

8. The first question which falls for consideration is whether the land covered under the instrument is agricultural land or not. Except the report dated 10.10.2003, there is no material on record to show that the land in question is not agricultural land. It may be noticed that the land in question at the time of sale was agricultural land. It is also not the case of the respondents that any declaration was granted or the land was treated as non-agricultural land under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. A copy of the said report dated 10.10.2003 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wh