JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 12.10.2012 passed under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) as well as order dated 16.03.2015 passed under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. A further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties not to adopt any coercive measure against petitioner in respect of recovery citation dated 29.12.2012 has also been sought.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in question is a part of Gata No.88 having an area of 0.731 hectare situate in the Village concerned which was purchased by one Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi by means of registered sale deed dated 03.01.2005. Since the said property was being utilised for agricultural purposes, the purchaser filed an application dated 09.06.2005 for declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The said application was allowed by means of order dated 28.11.2005 but subsequently another application was filed by the said person under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pertaining to a portion of aforesaid property for declaration as agricultural. The said application was also allowed on 26.05.2011 whereafter the petitioner-institution purchased a portion of the said Gata No.88 measuring area of 0.522 hectare by means of instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011. Upon presentation of the said document for registration, spot inspection was made and reference was initiated under Section 47A(3) after its registration and by means of order impugned under Section 47A of the Act of 1899, additional stamp duty and penalty has been imposed upon petitioner-institution.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed primarily on the ground that a College stands established over the purchased property and as such it cannot be deemed to be agricultural in nature. It is further submitted that additional stamp duty has also been imposed treating the property to be non-agricultural and imposing stamp duty as per the situation of the property abutting a road although additional stamp duty on the instrument has been paid as per actual situation of the property away from the road. It is submitted that the authorities fell in error in not considering the fact that College is not established over the entire 0.522 hectare and even as per the spot inspection report, is situated only over 0.209 hectare while rest of the property is being utilised for agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that even the spot inspection report is in violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997).

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that spot inspection report clearly indicates the fact that College stands established over the property purchased by means of the instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011 and also indicates that no agricultural activity is being undertaken thereupon. It is thus submitted that there is no error in the order particularly when the order also notices the fact that the property in question was converted to non-agricultural barely a month before the execution of the instrument of transfer.

6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from record that the property in question earlier was declared to be non-agricultural under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by means of order dated 28.11.2005 but a portion thereof, i.e. 0.522 hectare was thereafter declared to be agricultural with application under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act being allowed on 26.05.2011. The instrument of transfer wit