The central legal point established in the judgment is that if there is no declaration of the land being abadi and the actual user of the land is agricultural, the stamp duty treating the nature of land as abadi would be contrary to the provisions and the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The matter arises out of the proceedings under Indian Stamp Act, 1899. By the first order impugned dated 24.11.2016, a deficiency of Rs.14,11,960/-towards alleged deficient stamp duty has been levied upon the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act along with penalty of the same amount with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. By the second order impugned dated 28.9.2017, the statutory appeal by the petitioner under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act has been dismissed.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a land covered by Gata No.552(Kha) situated at Village Bijauriya alias Nawabganj, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly from some Mirazul and Jabir Hussain @ Jakir Hussain and others by registered sale deed dated 20.4.2016. It is contended that the user of the land was agricultural in nature, however, in the revenue records, in the year 2008, it was recorded as non agricultural for some reason.

4. It is further contended that sellers moved an application dated 29.12.2015 under Section 144 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned contending that no abadi exists on the land and that cultivation activities were being carried out. The said application was processed and necessary reports were called from concerned Revenue Officer, who submitted reports dated 4.3.2016 & 11.3.2016 clearly mentioning that the land covered by the aforesaid gata was being utilized for cultivation activities, however, as per the revenue records, the same had been declared as non agricultural. Existence of crop of Laahi was also mentioned in the reports.

5. It is further contended that during pendency of the aforesaid application under Section 144 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the provision of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was repealed and the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came into force and the matter was examined by Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned in the light of provisions of Section 82 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and by order dated 18.4.2016, the land covered by the aforesaid gata was declared agricultural.

6. It is further contended that the order dated 18.4.2016 became final, which was not challenged by any of the parties including the State. It is further argued that the petitioner purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed on 20.4.2016, and on the date, not only as per the order dated 18.4.2016, but also on facts, the land was being used for agricultural purposes. It is further contended that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj sent communication dated 25.4.2016 to the Collector, a copy whereof has been filed, taking note of the declaration made under Section 82 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the observation that it appears that the parties have moved application for declaration in order to evade stamp duty. The said apprehension is contained at page 29 of the paper book, which is quoted as follows:-

^^,slk Árhr gksrk gS fd i{kdkjksa us djkiopu dh ea'kk ls mijksDr Hkwfe dks d`"kd Hkwfe ?kksf"kr djus gsrq ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k gksxkA**

7. By the said communication, a request was made for registration of a case for recovery of deficient stamp duty.

8. In pursuance of the said report, stamp case in reference was registered in which the petitioner appeared and submitted objections clearly referring to the aforesaid proceedings and taking specific ground that the land as per record as well as per actual user is purely agricultural in nature and cannot be treated as abadi. The petitioner also led documentary evidence in support of his defence.

9. The Collector, Bareilly, by order impugned dated 24.11.2016, arrived at a conclusion that a declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act had been done in the year 2008, whereafter, the proceedings under Section 82 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were instituted