JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.1.2010 passed by A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh as well as the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by respondent no. 2.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that the petitioner purchased an agricultural land situate at Village Pala Sahibabad, Pargana & Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh bearing Khasra No. 121 and Khata No. 90 measuring 0.371 hectare, vide sale deed dated 27.11.2001 and paid the stamp duty which was payable on agricultural land. On 31.7.2004, after about two and a half years, the respondent no. 3 issued notices under Section 33/47-A proposing to levy the deficient stamp duty simply stating that the market value appears to be improperly stated in the document executed. The petitioner and the vendees filed their response. During the pendency of the said case, a report was called from the Tehsildar, Aligarh, who gave his report that the land in question was an agricultural land and was irrigated through a private tubewell and was situate at a distance of half a kilometre away from the National Highway and the Abadi. The petitioner also adduced evidence to the effect that the land in question continued to be an agricultural land, as referred in the Khasra entries, however, the respondent no. 3 passed an order dated 18.12.2004 recording that on the personal inspection carried out by the Adjudicating Authority himself it was clear that on the spot, no crops were standing and on account of pits on the land in question, it appears that for the last 2-3 years, no agricultural activity has been carried out over the property in question. He further rejected the report of the Tehsildar on the same grounds that he did not find the crops standing over the property in question. He further held that near the property in question, a colony was being constructed in the name of Bihari Dham as it appeared to him that the property should be valued for the purposes of stamp duty on the rates which are applicable to residential properties.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision No. 148 of 2005 and also filed his written submissions. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) without even resorting to the written submission filed by the petitioner as well as the grounds taken in the memo of revision.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is well settled that the nature of the property and its categorization on the date of the sale is the relevant criteria for determining the stamp duty to be levied while execution of the instrument of sale. He further submits that it is well settled that future use of the property or its potential to be used for a different purpose cannot be the criteria for determining the stamp duty that too after a gap of more than two and a half years. He further submits that there was no material on record for disbelieving the report of the Tehsildar, which categorically recorded that the land in question was being used as an agricultural land except the ocular testimony of the adjudicating authority himself, which too was done ex-parte without giving any notices to the petitioner. He thus submits that the petition deserves to be allowed as the orders passed are arbitrary and illegal.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 58859 of 2010 (Archana Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Others). He has further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of M/s Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the writ petition on the ground that once the Adjudicating Authority has himself visited the property in question and found that no agricultural activity was being carried out over the property in question, the orders passed are legal and call for no interference in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the