B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

Heard Sri Ashok Tripathi holding brief of Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-Respondents.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Stamps, Basti passed in proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899) as well as the revisional order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the Plot No.294 through sale deed dated 20.07.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and paid stamp duty of Rs. 2,000/-. However, proceedings under section 47-A of the Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner alleging deficiency of stamp duty. A report was called for from the Tehsildar, who submitted his report on 18.08.2004. The finding of fact recorded by the Additional Collector is that the Tehsildar in his report has mentioned that the land is agricultural land and on this land wheat crop is growing and it is used for agricultural purposes but because the land in question is only 100 meters from the west abadi and is situated near the Khadanja (brick road) therefore, it has been purchased for residential purposes. On these findings treating the land to have been purchased for residential purposes the Additional Collector has assessed the market value of the property at Rs. 2,73,320/- on which the stamp duty has been assessed at Rs. 19,920/- with penalty of a like amount and registration charges at Rs. 4,500/- total Rs. 56,292/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot in question was purchased as agricultural land and that there has been no change of usage and the Tehsildar also in his report has noted that the land is agricultural land on which the wheat crop is growing. Undisputedly, the sale deed is dated 20.07.2001 whereas the report of the Tehsildar is dated 18.08.2004, i.e. more than 3 years later when the undisputed facts of the case are that the even after 3 years of purchase the land was an agricultural land and on which wheat crop is still growing.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the market value of the land and the stamp duty payable thereon has to be determined having regard to the nature of the land as existing on the date of the sale deed. Reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 4 SCC 657, Prakash Wati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that mere proximity of the land to Abadi or to a residential colony inhabited by people belonging to high income group itself would not be a factor for determining the market value of the property for the purposes of stamp duty for proceedings under the Act, 1899. The Supreme Court has held as under:

"........Secondly, its being situated in an area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be a decent locality, where people of high income group reside, does not by itself make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price of the property in question. ..........."

6. In (2012) 5 SCC 566, State of U.P. v. Ambrish Tandon and others, the Supreme Court has held that merely because the property is being used for commercial purposes at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterian for assessing the value for the purpose of the nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty.

7. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambrish Tandon (supra) has been followed by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 136 (Smt. Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P.) wherein the Full Bench has also held that the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which