PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Surendra Singh and Zulfikar, the petitioners, by means of a registered sale deed dated 16th of August, 2003 purchased 0. 151 hectares in Khasra No. 113 of village Ismailpur, Boodhpur, Tehsil Chandpur, District Bijnore for an amount of Rs. 53,000/- and paid the stamp duty as applicable to agricultural land situate near the road.

2. They after one year demarcated their land from the land of other farmers in Khara No. 113 by laying a Pucca foundation using bricks around three sides of this land. After a long time, the Deputy Registrar, Chandpur, District Bijnor made a spot inspection of the land in question and recommended for initiation of proceedings as the instrument i. e. the sale deed according to him was deficiently stamped. On the basis of the said spot inspection report, the Assistant Inspector 4 General (Registration) referred the matter to the Collector (Stamp), Bijnore, under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. It was registered as Case No. 324 of 2004-2005. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Collector (Stamp), Bijnore. the petitioners submitted that the proper stamp duty has been paid on the instrument in question as per circle rate fixed for this purpose by the Collector, under the relevant rules. It was contended that the land purchased by them was, and still is being used for agricultural purposes and the stamp duty has been paid accordingly. The said plea did not find favour with the authority concerned

who under the order dated 27. 1. 2006 held that the land purchased by the petitioners was for the purposes of Abadi and as such, the stamp duty is payable thereon at the rate applicable to an Abadi land. A sum of Rs. 1,14,720/- was demanded towards the deficiency in stamp duty and Rs. 3,480/- more towards the registration charge.

3. The said order was challenged byway of appeal No. 28 of 2005-2006 under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Commissioner, Meprut Division, Meerut unsuccessfully. He, by the order dated 28th of November, 2006 dismissed the appeal on the ground that from the inspection report dated 28th December, 2004, it is clear that the land in dispute is situate near Noorpur-Amroha Road and residential activities are going on. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities below have wrongly held that the land in question is not agricultural land. The date when it was purchased, it was recorded as agricultural land in the Revenue records and it continues to be so even till date. There being no declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act declaring it as Abadi, the authorities below have acted arbitrarily and illegally in treating the land in dispute as non-agricultural land. It was submitted that the land is still recorded in the Revenue records as agricultural land and the petitioners are doing farming in this land as is apparent from the various Khasras. The Khata No. 113 was a big plot and after thirteen days of the sale deed in question i. e. on 29. 8. 2003 one Gayasuddin had also purchased a piece of land measuring 0. 152/2 hectares in the said Khasra No. 113. To him initially a notice for deficiency of stamp duty was issued by the respondent No. 3, but it was dropped subsequently by the order dated 14th of March, 2003 holding that the land is agricultural land. On the ground of parity also, the petitioners land is agricultural land. The respondents are not in possession of any material to show that on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, the land was other than the agricultural land. The burden to prove that the land was other than the agricultural land, lay upon the shoulders of respondents and not on the petitioners.

5. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned orders and submits that the said property was recorded as Abadi in the Revenue records and is situate in residential area. The au

Click Here to Read the rest of this document