Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging the order passed under Section 47 A (3) dated 10.10.2008 and the order passed under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act dated 16.4.2009 passed in appeal filed against the order dated 10.10.2008.

2. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Rajeev Mishra is that the petitioner purchased an area 0.2764 hectares of Plot No. 732 which is half of the total area of the aforesaid plot situated in village Bardani, Pargana and Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. After execution of a sale deed dated 7.8.2007, it appears that on receipt of certain information vide letter dated 31.12.2007 by the S.D.M. Soraon, an inspection on the property in question was carried out on 1.2.2008 by the Sub Registrar and on the basis of this inspection a notice under Section 47-A(3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 31.5.2008 to which the petitioner submitted his objection on 26.7.2008. It appears that the A.D.M. Civil Supply has proceeded to determine the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.3,59,520/- and deficiency in registration fee of Rs.1040/- and further imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 56(1-A) and the authority concerned affirmed the order of the A.D.M. Civil Supply, hence this writ petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that by execution of the sale deed, the petitioner had purchased an agricultural property situated in agricultural area where there is no construction either residential or commercial and the property was purely agricultural. However, after purchase of the property in question the petitioner moved an application under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition Act for declaration of the change of the land use and started construction of a cold storage. The authorities however, upon coming to know that an application under Section 143 of the Act has been moved, have held that the nature of the land was commercial because of the fact that cold storage is being constructed and therefore, determined deficiency of stamp duty. Sri Mishra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that future potentiality of the land cannot be seen. On the date of the execution of the sale deed, the property in question was an agricultural property and the circle rate admissible for the agricultural property was duly paid. Further there is no deliberate concealment of any material fact in the sale deed which may invite imposition of penalty.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the orders impugned. It is true that the petitioner immediately after purchase of the said property has started construction of a cold storage but this by itself would not mean that at the time of the purchase of the property, the property could have been treated to be commercial as the petitioner purchased agricultural property and on the date of the said purchase, the property was used for agricultural purpose and there was no material to indicate that the said property was either residential or commercial. Therefore, the stamp duty paid by the petitioner was just and proper. It has further been urged that no spot inspection etc. was made after purchase of the property. More so, the petitioner was not even confronted with the report of the Sub Registrar dated 1.2.2008 by which it has been stated that the property in question should be treated as commercial property. The law on the issue is very clear as Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act itself contemplates that after issuance of notice, the Collector himself is to determine the fair market value and if required inspection of the property should be made by the Collector and if such inspection is to be made then the petitioner should necessarily be associated with in s