Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 26.7.2001 passed by the Upper Collector/Stamp Collector, Sitapur in Case No. 86(k)-345 under Stamp Act as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition as well as the revisional order dated 14.8.2002 passed in Revision No. 158/2000-01 by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Ram Gopal had purchased 1/2 share of Gata No. 30/0.044 and Gata No. 136/0.192 hectare from one Daya Ram s/o Gurcharan R/o village Saidanpur, Pargana/Tehsil Mahmudabad, District Sitapur for Rs. 20,000/- by registered sale deed dated 2.6.1999 and he is in possession of the said land from the date of sale deed. The land purchased by the petitioner is 1230 sq. meter and as such he had paid the stamp duty @ Rs. 50/- per sq. meter according to the circle rate fixed by the Collector and prevailing at the time of execution of the sale deed.

4. On the basis of the complaint made by one Om Shanker s/o Bhagu Ram, the proceeding under Section 47-A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued by the Opposite Party No. 3. The petitioner submitted the objection/reply. In the reply, it was submitted that the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner is situated at a distance of more than two kilometres from the town Area Paintepur and there was no link road adjacent to the agriculture land Gata No. 136 at the time of the sale deed.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 26.7.2001 was passed on the basis of the Tehsildar’s report dated 3.5.2001 whereby the valuation of the land in question has been enhanced to Rs. 6,17,000/- and thereby deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 44,060/- and registration charges of Rs. 3,680/- plus penalty of Rs. 22,030/- has been imposed on the petitioner. By the impugned order Opposite Party No. 3 has directed to recover the amount of Rs. 69,717/- from the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that actually valuation of the land purchased by the petitioner was Rs. 61,500/- and valuation of the trees was Rs. 4,400/-. The total valuation of the land and trees was Rs. 65,900/-, upon which the petitioner had paid the stamp duty of Rs. 5,300/-, it is correct and according to the circle rate prevailing at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.7.2001 the petitioner had filed the revision No. 158/2000-01 before the Opposite Party No. 2, Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. By the interim order dated 7.9.2001 the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow had admitted the aforesaid revision and the operation of the impugned order dated 26.7.2001 was stayed subject to deposit of 25 per cent of the deficiency of the stamp and registration charges. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 11,935/- as deficiency of stamp and Rs. 920/- as deficiency of registration fee on 31.10.2001 which was done in compliance of the order dated 7.9.2001. The Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow thereafter by order dated 2.11.2001 had stayed the remaining recovery amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, however, the Opposite Party No. 2 by the impugned order dated 14.8.2002 without properly considering the various grounds taken in the revision has rejected the revision and confirmed the impugned order dated 26.7.2001.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the impugned order dated 26.7.2001 has been passed on the basis of false complaint made by one Om Shanker s/o Bhagu Ram, resident of same village in which the land is situated as Sri Om Shanker was interested in pur