Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in reality business, purchased half share in Plot No. 125Kha, area 3.056 hectare, situated in Mauza Maholi, Tehsil and District Mathura, vide sale-deed dated 27.6.2007. The consideration for the land purchased by it disclosed in the sale-deed was Rs. 26,25,000/- and it was registered as document No. 7881 of 2007. For the purpose of stamp duty, petitioner disclosed market value of property as Rs. 30,25,000/-, over which stamp duty of Rs. 3,02,500/- was paid. The property was purchased from Smt. Urmila Devi Agarwal, wife of Sri Ram Prakash Agarwal and Sri Ram Prakash Agarwal, son of Late Sri Kailash Chandra Ji Bindal, resident of 135, Krishnapuri, Mathura.

3. Thereafter, vide report dated 23.10.2007, Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Mathura, referred the document for determination of “true market value” under Section 47A(3) of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1899”) observing that land in dispute was not agricultural but a part of “Pushpanjali Upvan Awasiya Colony”, wherein plotting for residential purpose was already going on and a layout plan for the land in dispute was already got sanctioned from Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “MVDA”) on 29.5.2007 i.e. even before execution of sale-deed. Moreover, one small plot in disputed plot, measuring 372.28 sq.m. was already sold by seller on 30.8.2007 for consideration of Rs. 9,30,700/-. MVDA, in layout plan, has sanctioned 58.31% of land for residential plotting and 4.92% for commercial plotting, which clearly shows that land in dispute was wrongly valued treating it an agricultural land though it was not.

4. A notice was issued to the petitioner vide registering the matter as case No. 622/2007-08. The petitioner contested by filing objection dated 7.1.2008 stating that land was not declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) and therefore, it has rightly been shown in the sale-deed as an agricultural land. The petitioner claimed that copy of Khatauni of 1412-17 fasli was also filed alongwith objection. The respondent No. 2 passed order dated 31.12.2008 determining true market value of property at Rs. 2,59,76,000/-, over which stamp duty of Rs. 25,97,600/- found payable and hence deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 22,95,100/- was worked out. The petitioner was required to pay the same alongwith penalty of Rs. 2,60,000/- and interest from the date of execution of sale-deed till actual payment of deficient stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner preferred revision but the same has also been dismissed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vide order dated 30.9.2013.

5. The petitioner claimed that before passing revisional order, his counsel was not heard and restoration application was filed but the same was also rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 14.3.2014 observing that order was passed after hearing counsel for the petitioner.

6. Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the date of execution of sale-deed, land was shown as ‘agricultural land’ in revenue record. There was no declaration under Section 143 of Act, 1950, hence, it was rightly disclosed to be an agricultural land and respondents, in holding that it is not an agricultural land, have committed manifest error. He also contended that various relevant factor for determining stamp duty have not been considered while determining alleged true market value and value determined by respondents is wholly arbitrary, exaggerated, excessive and imaginary. He said that exemplar of small piece of land have been referred to, to determine market value of a very large piece of land though rate of small piece of land cannot be applied to a larger