Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—I have heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the proceedings initiated under Section 47(A-3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by issuing the notice and the order passed thereon and subsequent order passed in appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Act is against the procedure prescribed by law and is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, D.P.R. Foods Pvt. Ltd. is a business concern. It purchased 950 sq. metre of land of Khata No. 22 Khasra No. 220/1 out of 0.999 hectare situated in village Hirapur, Pargana Baran Tehsil and District Bulandshahar on 20-3-2007. A sale deed was executed and registered after payment of stamp duty treating the property to be residential. According to the petitioner, it was a vacant land with some construction on it in the shape of room and toilet. It appears that after the registration of sale deed the Sub-Registrar-II, Bulandshahar, submitted its report on 24-3-2007 that the said property is in fact commercial property and was purchased for the same purpose and situated in a commercial area where all around commercial activities are going on. The land is secured by a thirty feet high wall with a huge gate upon which “Tata Khad and Beej Godam” is written. It was reported that by declaring the said property in the sale deed as residential, the petitioner has tried to undervalue the property for the purpose of avoiding stamp duty and therefore deficiency in stamp duty was reported to the Collector. The Collector took cognizance of this report and issued notice to the petitioner and in response to that the petitioner filed an objection on 4-6-2007 stating therein that it was a mala fide action on the part of the Sub-Registrar to have submitted its report against the petitioner, and that the said property was purchased for residential purpose. The property was purchased from the vendor who had purchased the said agricultural land after paying the stamp duty applicable for agricultural land. Since there were some constructions on the land, the petitioner paid stamp duty on the basis of prevalent rate as applicable to residential land and therefore the stamp duty paid by him is just and proper.

4. The Collector in its impugned order dated 26-12-2007, while considering the objection of the petitioner, has given a finding that all around the petitioner’s plot commercial activities are going on, inasmuch as, the property is situated on Syana Road. On the north side there is Gur Godam of Sri Mool Chand, on the south side Yaka Factory and Plant of Mukesh Kedia, on the east side an old Milk Plant and on the west side is Syana main road and Budhu Milk plant. Thus, Commercial activities are going on in all around the petitioner’s plot and there is no reason to believe that the petitioner will use this property only for residential purpose.

5. It was not the case of the petitioner that this property had actually been used for residential purpose, on the contrary, the report was that it was used as godown of manure and seeds etc. From the description of the property, it appears that it was commercial in nature although, it is true that no further spot inspection was made of the property in question but this fact was not denied by the petitioner that all around the petitioner’s plot commercial activities are going on in full swing.

6. In the report, the Collector held that the property in question was in fact commercial property and the stamp duty as applicable to commercial property was to be paid by the petitioner. While paying the stamp duty, the petitioner did not make true and proper disclosure of the property in the sale deed which has resulted in loss of revenue in the shape of stamp duty an