Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 27.3.1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the review order dated 12.10.1995 passed by the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Mahrajganj the order dated 27.5.1995 and recovery certificate 20.5.1998.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question from one Sri Jhagaru. The sale-deed was executed on 31.8.1994, portions of two plots were purchased out of plot Nos. 1187 and 0.02 decimal and certain portion of plot No. 1334, total area measuring 0.17 decimal. When the matter came for enquiry before the respondent No. 2, A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Mahrajganj a report from the Naib Tahsildar was called for. The Naib Tahsildar submitted his report on 29.4.1994 stating the land to be agricultural land. However, the respondent No. 2 has proceeded to assess the deficiency of stamp on the basis of the report of the Naib Tahsildar, in which the value of the land is stated to be at least Rs. 60 per sq. ft. and total value of the land Rs. 4,23,370/- and deficiency stamp calculated at Rs. 52,875/-. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed Review Application, which was rejected by the order dated 12.10.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority but the revision has also been rejected by the order dated 27.3.1997.

3. I have heard Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. From a perusal of the order of respondent No. 2, it is seen that respondent No. 2 has relied upon the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 29.4.1994. It is clearly mentioned that the land is the agricultural land and that there is also a hand pump for purposes of irrigation. However, it is also stated that plot No. 1334 is only 20 meter distant from the nearest residential area and the plot No. 1187 is 225 meters distant from the residential area. It is also mentioned that in the north of the plot No. 1187 there is chakroad. It is also stated that on the plot in question there are mango trees and one jackfruit tree. Next to the plot is the railway line but it is very far from the main road. It is also stated that the plot No. 1334 is close to the Gorakhpur PWD road. Taking these facts into consideration the respondent No. 2 has inferred that since the plot in question is close to the residential constructions, therefore, value of the land should be calculated at Rs. 60 per sq. ft. and, therefore, he calculated the value of the land at Rs. 4,23,370/- and has calculated the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 51,026/-.

5. In the review order dated 12.10.1995 also the same grounds have been taken and the review application has been rejected by the respondent No. 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in his order dated 27.3.1997 has also concurred with the findings recorded by the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj and has held the deficiency of stamp duty to be Rs. 51026/-.

6. Submission of Sri P.K. Misra is that the Tahsildar in his own report has held the nature of the land to be agricultural land and his report has been accepted by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, for purposes of calculation of stamp duty it is nature of the land, which has to be seen as on the date of the sale-deed and not the use for which the land is capable of being put at a future date.

7. Learned standing counsel sought to justify the impugned orders by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit wherein it has been stated that the land in question is situated near the Anand Nagar railway station and also situated on the Gorakhpur main road and, therefore, deficiency of stamp duty has been rightly calculated by the respondent No. 2. The legal position in this regard is that stamp duty has to be calculated on the basis of