The classification of agricultural land cannot be altered based solely on its proximity to commercial activity without proper legal declaration.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri. Syed Fahim Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 201713590572 under Section 47A(3) of Indian Stamp Act and the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision No. 00105 of 2018 (Computerized No. C201813000000105).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have purchased an agricultural land by way of execution of Sale deed dated 29.04.2016 and paid the due stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, a notice was issued to which the petitioners have submitted their objection/reply. Thereafter, again on the request of the petitioners, a spot inspection was made. In the said inspection, it was found that over the property in question, agricultural activity were being undertaken and presently also, agricultural activity are being undertaken. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of specific finding in the said report, the Collector while passing the impugned order dated 25.10.2017, has wrongly assessed the deficiency of stamp duty, amounting to Rs.11,25,150/-, against which a revision was preferred. During the pendency of the said revision, again an ex-part survey report was prepared on 24.05.2018, but by the impugned order dated 31.05.2018, relying upon the third survey as well as on the first survey, deficiency of the stamp duty has been confirmed and the revision has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while passing the impugned order, true material has not been considered. He further submits that the land in question has not been declared as an Abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to which a specific ground had been taken, but the same has not been considered by the authority. He next submits that the vicinity of the area is not relevant as held by this Court, but without considering the same, the impugned orders have been passed.

5. He further submits that if the property can have a better market value in future, that cannot be a ground for determining the deficiency of stamp duty. He further submits that the date on which the instrument is executed is the relevant date and after use cannot be a ground for determining the deficiency of stamp duty. He further submits that in absence of declaration of Abadi land under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, any adverse inference drawn against the petitioners cannot be justified

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Smt. Pushpawati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad & Ors., (1996) 0 Supreme (SC) 1036 as well as judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No.51205 of 2010 (M/s Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Min. of Revenue and others), Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 others) & Writ-C No.42628 of 2010 (Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P. and Others). He prays for allowing the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that it is not dispute that at the time of execution of sale deed as well as in all the three survey reports, in the vicinity of the land in question, commercial activity were being undertaken. Once adjacent to the plot in question, commercial activity were being undertaken, the authorities have rightly initiated the proceedings and held the deficiency of stamp duty.

8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the agricultural land was purchased by the petitioners by way of aforesaid sale deed and thereafter, the proceedings of deficiency of stamp duty