Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.6.1997 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Shahjahanpur (in short, ‘ADM’) in stamp case No. 215/1992-Bhavan (State v. Jahid Ali and others) and order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in revision No. 92 of 1997 (Shahid Ali and others v. State). vide order dated 28.6.1997, the ADM has found the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 48,785.50, whereas by the subsequent order dated 12.5.1999, the petitioner’s revision against the order dated 28.6.1997 has been dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to this case are that sale-deed No. 3198 was executed in the year 1991 and the stamp duty was paid on the consideration of Rs. 1, 10, 000/-. Sub Registrar, Sadar made a reference under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, ‘the Act’) and the same was decided under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act. From the perusal of the judgment of the ADM, it also transpires that the authority has sent a letter for determining the valuation of the property on 26.12.1992, but the same was not supplied to the authority till the date of the judgment dated 28.6.1997. The ADM, in these circumstances, it appears, made a spot inspection on 21.6.1997 and found that the land, including the house, is situated in a commercial area, as there are number of shops in the vicinity of that land and treating it as commercial area, has assessed the valuation of the land himself Rs. 4, 06,120/- on the basis of the circle rate fixed by the Collector for commercial area of Rs. 5,200/- per square meter.

4. On the basis of the spot inspection, the ADM came to the conclusion that only 78.10 square meter land has been purchased by the petitioner, who are four in number, therefore, the land has not been purchased for residential purpose and on the basis of the spot inspection report, he concluded that the same has been purchased for commercial purpose and passed the impugned order dated 28.6.1997.

5. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed revision. In the revision, specific ground has been taken that in the year 1992, when sale-deed was executed, neither there was any shop in the vicinity of the house in dispute nor there was any commercial establishment. However, during these five years, some shops have been constructed. It is also stated that merely by construction of one or two shops, the area cannot be treated to be a commercial area. It was also stated that Mohalla Tarin Bahadurgunj and Tarin Tikli are two separate Mohallas and most of the commercial establishments are in Mohalla Tarin Bahadurgunj. The Nursing Home, Shops etc., which have been found during the spot inspection, are situated in Mohalla Tarin Bahadur, whereas the house in question is situated in Mohalla Tarin Tikli, which is about 300 meter away from Mohalla Tarin Bahadur. It is also stated that the spot inspection memo was prepared by none else except the ADM and copy of the same was not given to the petitioner. The Commissioner, while dismissing the revision, did not address himself on this point and dismissed the revision.

6. Sri Asthana contended that admittedly, the sale-deed was executed in the year 1992 and the spot inspection memo was prepared on 21.6.1997, after five years of the execution of the sale-deed. In his submissions, once there was specific objection of the petitioner that when the house in question was purchased, there was no shop or commercial establishments in the vicinity of the house in question, the Commissioner, without recording the specific finding to the effect that the shops and the commercial establishments are existing since 1992, could not pass his judgment on the basis of the finding recorded by the ADM, which w