JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has purchased agricultural plot No.26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor situated at village-fautapar, Tappa-Haveli, District-Basi through registered sale-deed executed on 23.03.1995 for Rs.47,200/- The stamp of Rs.15370/- has been paid on the value of Rs.1,06,000/-. Proceeding under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp was initiated in respect of petitioner's aforementioned sale deed which was registered as Stamp Case No.899/301/1994 under Section 47A Stamp Act State Vs. Manorama. A report was called for in the case accordingly Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 06.11.1995 before Collector in Stamp Case No.899/301/1994 mentioning that disputed sold plot is agricultural property and no building is situated in the disputed plot, the disputed plot is not of residential/commercial importance. The user of land has not been changed and there is no declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect of disputed plot No.26. Petitioner appeared in the aforementioned case after notice and Additional Collector heard the matter. The additional collector without considering the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 and without making the spot inspection himself fixed the rate of Rs.1000/- per square meter accordingly Stamp duty of Rs.97,585 was fixed hence deficiency of Rs.82,215 and penalty of Rs.82,215 was imposed vide his order dated 29.01.1996. Petitioner challenged the order passed by additional collector dated 29.01.1996 through revision before Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling revenue authority taking specific ground in the ground of revision that land in dispute is agricultural land and surrounded by agricultural land on all sides but Board of Revenue in arbitrary manner allowed the revision party setting aside the order imposing penalty only but the order of deficiency of stamp duty was maintained, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the following interim order dated 13.02.2002 :

"The learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2. He prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

Subject to petitioner giving security of the equal amount of deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs.82,215/- to the satisfaction of respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

4. In spite of the interim order dated 13.02.2002 passed by this Court no counter affidavit has been filed by Standing Counsel on behalf of State denying the averment made in the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has been arbitrarily initiated against the petitioners. He further submitted that Naib Tehsildar has submitted his report dated 06.11.1995 that disputed plot is an agricultural plot and building is not situated over the disputed plot but Additional Collector without considering the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 has ordered for payment of stamp duty and penalty without any evidence on record to that effect. he further submitted that revisional court although set aside the order of imposition of penalty but on the ground of probability maintained the order of payment of stamp duty. He further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was also not afforded by revisional Court. He further submitted that no declaration has been made under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect to disputed plot No 26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 2021 (152) RD 141 Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which this Court has held that valuation has to be done on the date of execution of the sale deed and not on the