Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted with an object to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue. Once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of initial defect in the instrument. The sole object of Stamp Act under its various provisions is to require the parties concerned to set forth correct market value of the property at which the transaction has taken place so that appropriate duty in accordance with the Act is paid by them to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty. It also mandates that while setting forth the correct market value of the property in dispute the competent authority must not apply their mind in a fact fashion and in a haphazard way.

2. The facts shorn of details are that the petitioner purchased 0.222 hectare of agricultural land through a registered sale deed dated 18.5.2004 executed by one Ashok Kumar Mishra son of Sri Gokul Prasad Mishra, who was holding Power of Attorney of the erstwhile holders. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 3,64000/- was paid by the petitioner as a sale consideration. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for determining the market value of the property under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act which was contested by the petitioner. By an order dated 29.1.2006, A.D.M.(F&R) Allahabd had held that the market value has not been properly assessed with a view to evade the stamp duty and thereby had directed that the stamp duty payable was Rs. 4,07,500/- and directed the payment of the difference by the petitioner and had also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. Petitioner preferred a civil revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabd which was numbered as 12/2006-07 and the same was also dismissed. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act of the land purchased by the petitioner as such unless there is any declaration the nature and character of the land cannot be treated to be Aabadi for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Therefore, the observation of the authorities that it was not the agricultural land on the date of transfer effected rather it is treated to be of the Aabadi land. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no future potential of the land can be taken into consideration as at that point of time when the transfer was effected no such constructions were raised on the adjoining plots of the petitioner and hence the impugned orders are wholly erroneous and misconceived and therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the demand of alleged deficiency in stamp duty has been raised only on the ground that the land has immediate potential though it is not in dispute that the land in question has not been declared as Abadi under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “1951 Act”). He further contended that at the time of the execution of the land, the land in dispute has been shown as agricultural land in the sale deed and, therefore, the stamp duty imposed upon the petitioner is wholly illegal, based on conjectures and surmises, and even otherwise contrary to law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that it has rightly been found by the authorities concerned that the land has higher market value and stamp duty was payable at the rate applicable to Abadi land and not to agricultural land. He, thus, submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record committed by the respondents and the writ petition, there