Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Anand Kumar Pandey and Sri B.J. Singh, learned counsels for respondent No. 5.

Facts:

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Sri Anand Pathak and Smt. Anuradha Pathak (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) have executed a sale-deed on 5.3.2012 in favour of Smt. Asha Pathak (respondent No. 5). According to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in the said sale-deed, inadvertently Khasra Plot No. 1916 measuring 0.016 hectare was mentioned instead of Khasra Plot No. 477 measuring 0.012 hectare and Khasra Plot No. 480 measuring 0.004 hectare out of an area of 0.016 hectare of village Nagwa, Pargana, Tehsil and District Ballia. Thus, under the aforesaid sale-deed dated 5.3.2012 a total land of 0.016 hectare was sold. The boundaries were correctly shown in the sale-deed but Khasra Plot No. 1916 was inadvertently mentioned instead of Khasra Plot Nos. 477 and 480. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 executed another sale-deed dated 3.6.2013 in favour of the petitioner on 1/2.6.2013 with respect to several plots including Khasra Plot Nos. 477 and 480. Since, according to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 there was a mistake in the sale-deed dated 5.3.2012 in mentioning the Khasra Plots and as such a correction deed dated 8.8.2013 was executed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to correct the earlier executed sale-deed dated 5.3.2012 whereby Khasra Plot Nos. 477 and 480, for areas mentioned above, were substituted in place of Khasra Plot No. 1916. The respondent No. 5 also filed Original Suit No. 460 of 2013 on 23.8.2013 for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to land of Khasra Plot Nos. 477 and 480 measuring 0.016 hectare of the village in question. In the meantime, the Sub-Registrar, Ballia made a reference dated 26.8.2013 to the Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Ballia alleging deficiency of Court fees of Rs. 16,220/- and registration fees Rs. 8,060/- on the ground that the deed dated 8.8.2013 should be charged to duty, as a sale-deed and not as a correction deed. Consequently, a Stamp Case No. 82 of 2013 (State v. Asha Pathak) registered and notices under Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) with respect to the instrument dated 8.8.2013 were issued to the respondent No. 5 by the Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Ballia. The respondent No. 5 submitted a reply dated 30.9.2013 which was accepted by the Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Ballia and an order dated 30.7.2014 was passed in Stamp Case No. 82 of 2013 holding as under:

^^eSus foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk rFkk vij ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk jktLo dh cgl dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd vkjkth uEcj 1916 dh tks pkSgn~nh ogh nh x;h gS] og okLro esa vkjkth uEcj 477 ,oa 480 dh pkSgn~nh gSA frfrEek foys[k esa u rks pkSgn~nh esa ifjorZu gS vkSj u gh jdck esa vUrj vk jgk gSA ,d ek= vUrj vkjkth uEcj dk gks jgk gSA vkjkth uEcj 477 ,oa 480 dh tks pkSgn~nh frfrEek foys[k esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ogha pkSgn~nh ewy foys[k esa Hkh vafdr gSA bl vk/kkj ij frfrEek foys[k dks u;k foys[k ekuk tkuk mfpr ugha gS] tSlk fd rglhy cfy;k dh vk[;k ls Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd vkjkth uEcj 1916 dh pkSgn~nh tks nh x;h gS] og pkSgn~nh vkjkth uEcj 477 ,oa 480 dh gSA pw¡fd bl frfrEek foys[k esa dksbZ u;k ekSfyd ifjorZu ugha gks jgk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'uxr frfrEek ij fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ LVkEi deh ugha curh gSA mijksDRk foospuk ds vk/kkj ij frfrEek foys[k Ik;kZIr ;Fkkfof/k LVkfEir ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA^^

3. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2014 the petitioner filed a Revision No. 21/B/C/2014150000717 of 2014 in the Court of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. The aforesaid revision of the petitioner under Section 56 of the Act was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Azamgar