Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 38 of 2004-2005 under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, as also the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Jalaun at Orai in Case No. 381 of 2004-05 under Sections 33 / 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner agreed to purchase plot of land i.e. plot No. 179, situated at Umrarkhera, Kasba Orai, district Jalaun from one Ratanju and for that purpose an agreement for sale was executed on 21.8.2001 by power attorney holder of Ratanju namely, Shri Shree Ram, which was registered on 22.8.2001. As per the agreement the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 60,000/- out of which Rs. 55,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid on execution of the sale-deed. Two years’ time was provided to execute the sale-deed and in case the vendor resiled from execution of the deed, the vendee was given a right to sue for specific performance of the agreement. In this agreement it was specifically mentioned that possession has not been delivered to the vendee. On this agreement stamp duty of Rs. 3752/-, and registration fee of Rs. 1120/-, was paid on the consideration set forth in the instrument, as was required by clause (b-1) of Article 5 of the Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P.

3. From Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition it appears that on 1.12.2004 the Sub-Registrar, Orai, on the direction of the Asst. Inspector General Registration, Orai, carried out inspection of the land, which was the subject-matter of the agreement for sale. On the basis of the inspection, a report was submitted by him to the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Orai, on 4.12.2004, which has been brought on record as Annexure 7 to the petition. In this report it was stated that on the date of inspection i.e. 1.12.2004 it was found that there were demarcation marks surrounding the plot in question, which suggested that possession was delivered. Although otherwise the plot was vacant. It was also stated that the persons present on spot had deposed that Raj Kumar i.e. the vendee (petitioner herein) was in possession. On this basis, the Sub-Registrar reported that the agreement for sale was with deilvery of possession and, therefore, was liable to be stamped as a conveyance under the Explanation to Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. Accordingly, by assessing the market value of the land at Rs. 6,07,000/-, he opined that the stamp duty payable was Rs. 60,700/-, as against Rs. 3,752/- paid by the petitioner, and registration fee payable was Rs. 5,020/-, as against Rs. 1120/- paid by the petitioner. He, therefore, recommended for initiation of proceedings to realize the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 56,948/-, as also the deficient registration fee of Rs. 3900/-.

4. Pursuant to the report dated 4.12.2004 of the Sub-Registrar, Orai, the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Jalaun at Orai issued notice to the petitioner purportedly under Sections 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act thereby calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why deficit stamp duty of Rs. 56,948/- and deficit registration fee of Rs. 3900/- together with penalty be not imposed on him.

5. In response to the notice given by the ADM (F&R), Jalaun the petitioner gave his reply stating, inter alia, that the agreement for sale was without delivery of possession; that the petitioner is still not in possession; that the report was obtained ex parte, therefore, is not reliable; that the sale-deed was to be executed within two years, therefore, under the law of limitation the petitioner can institute suit for specific performance up to 21.8.2006; and that when ever the sale-deed is executed the petitioner would pay stamp duty as per law. With the aforesaid