The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of paying stamp duty according to the market value/circle rate fixed by the Collector for the village concerned, and the distinction between agricultural land and Abadi land.

By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 1.3-8-2002 as well as judgment and order dated i3-10-2003 passed by the Upper Collector (Finance and Revenue) Haridwar and the Commissioner Garhwal Division, Camp at Dehradun respectively.

2. By the order dated 13-8-2002, passed in Case No. 348-M.V./01-02 under the Stamp Act, the respondent no. 2 imposed penalty of Rs. 92,801/which included amount of Rs. 57,275/- towards deficiency of stamp duty against the petitioner and ordered him to deposit the said amount within a week, failing which the recovery thereof shall be made as arrears of land revenue. Against this order, revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, who vide his judgment and order dated 13-10-2003 partly allowed the revision and waived the fine of Rs. 35,526/- but maintained the order regarding payment of deficiency of stamp duty.

3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, she purchased 1/4 share of Khata No. 84, Khasra no. 77/1 of village Laksari Paragana Mangiaur, Tahsil Kaksar, District Hardwar on 3-2-2000 from Sri Rajpal Gupta, S/ o Lala Harnand Lal of village Simli vide registered sale deed dated 3-2-2000. The disputed land was said to be agricultural land of village Laksari and is being used as such. The said land is excluded from Avas Vikas Kar. The petitioner purchased the disputed land according to the circle rate and adequate and proper stamp duty.

4. On the basis of the audit report of the Accountant General, wherein the land measuring 0.0935 Hectare was held to be Abadi land, therefore, the sale deed No. 337/2000 was referred by the Sub-Registrar, Laksar to the respondent no. 2 for determining the stamp duty and for recovery thereof. Notices were issued to the petitioner, who filed objection alleging therein that the disputed land was agricultural land and is being used as such and accordingly, the stamp duty was paid according to Circle Rates of the Collector. It was also pleaded that the Tahsildar concerned has reported that the land in question is being used for agriculture, hence the notice be dropped.

5. The learned Aper Collector-respondent no. 2 after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the material on record came to the conclusion that the disputed land of Khasara No. 77/1 measuring 0.0935 Hectare is being used for Abadi purposes. He also observed that since the land in dispute Is less than 0.105 Hectare, therefore, the stamp duty was payable at the highest rate fixed for the village concerned. It was observed that the opposite party-petitioner could not show that land is being used for agriculture. The learned Apar Commissioner Ignoring the report of the Tahsildar has held that the valuation of the land was Rs. 6,07,750/- and there was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 57,275/-. He accordingly passed the impugned order dated 13-8-2002 Imposing penalty of Rs. 35,526/- and for recovery of deficient stamp duty of Rs. 57,275/-, as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner, where the case was registered as Stamp Revision No. 21/ 2001-02. The revisional authority after hearing both the parties did not find favour with the petitioner and held that the petitioner was liable to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 52,275/-. However, it was held that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner and that the disputed land was being used for agricultural purposes, hence, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 35,526/was set aside vide judgment and order dated 13-10-2003.

7. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land in question is an agricultural land as reported by the Tehsildar Laksar to the respondent no. 2 and there is finding of the Revisional Court that the land was being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, there was no deficiency in the payment of stamp duty with respect