JUDGMENT :

Jayant Banerji, J.

1. Heard Shri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp, Mathura in proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the order passed by the Commissioner dated 28.7.2009 passed in Revision No. 163 of 2009.

3. It has been stated in the writ petition that plot nos. 212 and 213 having a total area of 1.214 hectare situated in Village Jaisingh Pura Banger, Tehsil and District Mathura was purchased by the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.11.2002. Relying upon an audit report, the Sub-Registrar, Mathura-Ist reported to the Collector, Mathura by means of his letter dated 15.9.2004, that there was deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs. 4,10,600/-. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 47A of the Act were initiated and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objections stating that the land in question is agricultural and therefore, the stamp duty as per the rate of land for agricultural purposes is to be fixed and not as per the residential rate. It is stated that a local inspection was allegedly made by the Tehsildar, Mathura on 20.1.2007 without any notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, by means of an order dated 25.3.2009, the Assistant Commissioner Stamp, relying on the report of the Tehsildar dated 20.10.2007 held that the deficiency of the stamp on the instrument was Rs. 4,10,600/-and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-along with interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per mensem. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in a revision before the Commissioner and by the order dated 28.7.2009, the revision was rejected upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of the land, admittedly, the usage was agricultural and not residential. It is contended that without getting an inspection done in terms of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, and, by basing finding on the basis of future potential of the land, stamp duty for residential usage has been determined which is completely illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of this Court in the matter of Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another dated 15.4.2015 passed in Misc. Single No. 3 of 1993, Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority , Uttar Pradesh reported in (2000) 3 AWC 2587 and the judgement dated 8.7.2020 passed in the case of Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No. 42628 of 2010 . Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others dated 1.9.2015 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 598 of 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition stating that the Tehsildar's report dated 20.1.2007 was prepared pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner before the Court of the Assistant Commissioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that he had no notice of the spot inspection. It is further contended that the Assistant Commissioner has relied upon the report of the Tehsildar to formulate its opinion and therefore, the order passed under Section 47A cannot be faulted. It is stated that the rep