Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 30.7.2008 and 19.3.2008 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he took a loan amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- from the Allahabad Bank Branch, Madhogarh, District Jalaun for setting up Mentha Oil Plant and for the purposes of the loan he mortgaged 3.112 hectare of his agricultural land. The loan was taken under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973). A hypothecation agreement was also executed on 28.11.2007 between the petitioner and the Bank as security for the repayment of the loan advance. It is stated that the agreement was executed on payment of stamp duty of Rs.100/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty a report was sent by the Dy. Registrar, Madhogarh to the Inspector General of Registration Orai dated 19.12.2007 mentioning therein that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was payable towards stamp duty on the agreement dated 28.11.2007 under Article 40(B) of Scheduled I-B of the Act, 1899. Notice was issued to the petitioner to which he also submitted his reply stating therein that the loan was taken for agricultural purposes under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act and, therefore, it was not chargeable to stamp duty beyond Rs.100/-.

3. The Collector, Stamp however by his order dated 19.3.2008 has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he was an agriculturist and that the loan taken for establishing a Mentha Oil Plant was an agricultural activity and the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.18,000/- was determined with penalty of like amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed stamp appeal which was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Jhansi Division by his order dated 30.7.2008.

4. The contention of Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was an agriculturist and that the loan was taken for purposes of establishing a Mentha Oil Plant which is an agricultural activity and for purposes of loan he had also mortgaged 3.112 hectares of agricultural land in favour of the Bank. Reference has been made to the definition of “Agriculture” and “Agricultural Purposes” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, 1973. Section 2(a) of the Act, 1973 reads as under:

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(a) “agriculture” and “agricultural purpose” includes making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land (including development of sources of irrigation), raising and harvesting of crops, horticultures, forestry, cattle breeding, animal husbandary, dairy farming, piggery, poultry farming, seed farming, pisciculture, apiculture, sericulture and such other activities as are generally carried on by persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities and also includes -

(i) marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport;

(ii) the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity;

(iii) the acquisition of gobar-gas plant; and

(iv) the establishment and maintenance of agro-service centres.

Provided that the constrution of a house for personal use in rural area on abadi land or the repair, modernization of extension thereof and purchase, storage and acquisition of non-conventional or alternate energy plant and machinery or matters connected therewith shall be deemed to be an agricultural purpose for the purposes of this Act.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the expression “agro-service centre” means a place or a shop where the entreprenures, trained by the U.P. State Agro-Industrial Corporation Limited, carry on the sale of seeds, fertilizers, insecitsides, pesticides, or other goods of agricultural use or agricultural operations in respect of land