JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed in question was executed on 22.7.2008 for an agricultural land. A perusal of the order dated 20th July, 2009 shows that the market value of the land has been assessed on non-agricultural basis only on the ground that there exists a textile mill known as Chhadha Spin Mill and opposite to the land of the petitioner, a petrol pump of Reliance is in operation and, therefore, it appeared that the property in question had commercial value and on that basis, the deficiency of stamp duty was assessed as Rs. 1,52,000/-and equal amount of penalty as Rs. 1,52,000/-was imposed total Rs. 3,05,000/-, which was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month in terms of the statutory provisions.

3. The counsel for the petitioner Sri Bharat Pratap Singh submits that in terms of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, only two kinds of property are described in Rule 3, which includes agricultural land as well as commercial land, for which the manner of prescribing the stamp duty is prescribed. He further submits that in the impugned order, there is no finding to the effect that the land in question is not an agricultural land and is being used as a non-agricultural land.

4. A perusal of the order dated 20th July, 2009 further reveals that on the property in question there is only one tree of Neem and there is no finding on record to suggest that the property in question was being used for non-agricultural purposes. The order impugned has been passed on the presumption that the land in question has the potential of being used for nonagricultural purposes. Thus, the sole question to be considered is whether deficiency in stamp duty can be assessed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act only on the ground that the land in question has the potential of being used for nonagricultural purposes.

5. Sri Bharat Pratap Singh has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Sarvoday Babu Uddeshiya Vikas Samiti v. Commissioner, Kanpur Division and Others; [2014(1) ADJ 415] and M/s Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, judgment dated 20.9.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 53008 of 2012. He further drawn my attention to the report dated 16.9.2008, in which the Joint Registrar has observed that on the land in question, the crop was still standing, although the land in question can be used for commercial purposes.

6. This Court while considering the similar question in the case of M/s Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, recorded as under:-

"A Division Bench of this Court in 2015 (9) ADJ 503, Smt. Vijaya Jain vs. State of U.P. and Others has held in paragraphs 20 and 23 which read as under:

"20. Having extracted the relevant statutory provisions above, the following principles emerge therefrom. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 47-A of the Act empowers the registering officer to call upon the person who has presented an instrument for registration to pay deficit stamp duty. This power is exercisable by the registering officer immediately after presentation of an instrument and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under Section 52 of the Act. This power is liable to be exercised in a situation where the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the minimum value fixed by the Collector in accordance with the rules made under the Act. In distinction to the above, the power under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A is exercised by the Collector either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps, Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized in that behalf by the State Government. This power confers jurisdiction and authority on