The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurately determining the classification of the property and the applicable stamp duty based on the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1899, while also emphasizing the necessity of compliance with the U.P. Stamp Rules 1997 in the submission of reports by the Stamp Authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner purchased plot Nos. 1198, 1199, 1200, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213 total nine plots area 1.2030 hectare of Khata No. 410 situated in Village Kalaha Pargana Baghpat Tehsil Khekatha District Baghpat by registered sale deed dated 29.4.2010 from Smt. Kalawati wife of Shri Maniram for sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs on stamp duty of Rs. 5 lakhs 60 thousand. Owner of the plot Smt. Kalawati lodged a First Information Report under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. in respect to the aforementioned sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Kalawati also filed a suit No. 70 of 2010 for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud. Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 31.5.2010 decreed the suit on the basis of compromise dated 25.5.2010 cancelling the sale deed executed on 29.4.2010. A report dated 14.5.2010 was submitted by Sub-Registrar to Assistant Registrar to the effect that in East of disputed plot there is a road, in South residential house and agricultural plots are located, the disputed plot is surrounded by boundary wall having large number of fruit bearing trees with one kothari in 21.50 square meter for keeping the agricultural implements. On the basis of aforementioned report proceeding for deficiency of stamp duty has been initiated in respect to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and the same was registered as Case No. 15/1/2011 under Section 47-A/ 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. After receiving a notice in the aforementioned proceeding, petitioner filed his objection dated 4.7.2011 stating that he purchased the agricultural plot by registered sale deed executed on 29.4.2010 and even at present the plot is in the shape of grove having large number of fruit bearing trees and there is no residential construction in the plot except one kothari for keeping the agricultural implements. It is also mentioned in the objection of the petitioner that the sale deed in question has been cancelled by Civil Court in suit No. 70 of 2010 vide judgement and decree dated 13.5.2011. Assistant Commissioner Stamp Baghpat heard the aforementioned case No. 15/ 01/ 2011 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 and vide judgement dated 25.8.2011 have held that there is a deficiency in payment of stamp duty, as such, amount of Rs. 16,92,050/- was found deficient towards payment of stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the ground that in some part of the land abadi has been developed, as such, the stamp duty should be paid according to residential rate of the plot in question. Petitioner challenged the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by Assistant Commissioner Stamp through appeal under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act along with application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Board of Revenue Camp at Meerut (respondent No.2). The aforementioned appeal was heard by respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed by judgement dated 4.9.2012 affirming the order passed by Assistant Commissioner Stamp dated 25.8.2011. Hence this writ petition.

3. This Court on 24.9.2012 passed the following order:-

"Learned standing counsel is granted one month to file counter affidavit.

List this matter for admission on 29.10.2012.

Subject to the payment of 50% of the disputed amount within three weeks from today, the impugned demand shall remain stayed till 29.10.2012. The penalty, if any, is stayed completely.

Any amount already deposited shall be adjusted against 50% of the amount.

In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the period as indicated above, this stay order shall stand automatically vacated."

4. In compliance of the aforementioned interim order dated 24.9.2012, petitioner has deposited a part of the amount towards stamp duty and penalty. Standing Counsel has filed his