ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Under challenge in the present petition is the order dated 10.5.2019, whereby the Collector, Rampur in Case No. 00271 of 2018, under Section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899(hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that the land in question reflects residential usage and, accordingly, assessed deficiency of stamp duty and penalty. Further under challenge is an order of Collector, Rampur dated 2.9.2019, passed on an application for review of the previous order dated 10.5.2019, whereby, the order dated 10.5.2019 was modified and proportionate amount of stamp duty payable by each of the tenure holder was specified. Also under challenge is the order dated 21.1.2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Moradabad Division in an appeal under Section 56(1A) of the Act filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders dated 10.5.2019 and 2.9.2019, whereby the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the amount of penalty imposed.

3. The facts in brief as mentioned in the petition, are that Plot No. 400 having an area of 1.306 hectare situated in Village Kashipur, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, which was recorded as an agricultural land, was sold by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.12.2017 in favour of the petitioner and others. It is stated that the petitioner and one Babu Hasan have 40% share each in the property while one Taufeeq has only 20% share and they had made payment of stamp duty according to their share of the property in question. A notice dated 12.4.2018 was issued to the petitioner under Section 33 /47A of the Act. The objections to the notice were filed on 13.4.2018. An application was filed on 4.7.2018 for conducting a fresh spot inspection in presence of the petitioner and other co-tenure holders. The spot inspection was done on 12.7.2018 against which the petitioner filed an objection. In view of the petitioner's objection, another spot inspection was done on 6.5.2019 in which it was specifically mentioned that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes. However, the respondent no. 3, by means of order impugned dated 10.5.2019 assessed the deficiency of stamp duty and imposed penalty. Thereafter, a review application was filed for determining proportionate liability on each of the tenure holders for payment of deficiency of stamp duty.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed under Section 47A(3) of the Act dated 10.5.2019 as well as by order dated 2.9.2019 passed on the review application, an appeal was filed under Section 56(1A) of the Act which was partly allowed by reducing the amount of penalty substantially.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the joint report dated 6.5.2019 prepared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Assistant Inspector General of Registration reflects that the land in question was found to be in a shape of an agricultural land. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities below to hold that the land in question was being used for non-agricultural purpose that is to say, residential purpose. It is further contended that the valuation done by the District Magistrate in the order dated 10.5.2019 is based on the minimum rates which cannot be done in view of the mandate of section 47A(3) of the Act which requires that valuation of the property in question be assessed as per its market value. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in case this Court upholds the order passed by the authorities below, then the petitioner is ready to make the paym