DEV KANT TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner "purchased 4 biswas land of plot No. 186 of village Rasoolabad. Haus Patti Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur. district Faizabad. The area of the said plot was 12 biswas. The petitioner, Smt. Kusum Lata and Sri Avdhesh Partap each purchased 4 biswas land of the plot No. 186 by means of three separate sale deeds dated 4. 5. 1994. Objections were raised by the Sub-Registrar regarding the valuation and payment of the stamp duty on the sale deeds. The A. D. M. (F and R) held that in each of the three cases the stamp duty was evaded to the tune of rs. 32,937,50 P. Separate revisions were filed by the petitioner and two other transferees before the Commissioner who remanded the cases of the two purchasers, namely, Smt. Kusum Lata and avadesh Pratap to the A. D. M. (F and R) for rehearing. However, the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner by means of the impugned order dated 5. 8. 1998. ( 3 ) THE said order rejecting the revision has been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that 4 biswas each of plot No. 186 was sold on the one and the same day to the petitioner and the two others and, the value of the land in ordinary course must be deemed to be the same in respect of the three cases but the Commissioner discriminated in the cases by remanding the two other cases and dismissing the case of the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE Commissioner, Faizabad. has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner from those of other two persons on the ground that there was construction on the land of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land and the construction was made only after the said land was transferred and. therefore, the valuation was not required to be made on the construction made. This question was also required to be considered by the A. D. M. (F and R ). The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land and the construction was made only after the said land was transferred and. therefore, the valuation was not required to be made on the construction made. This question was also required to be considered by the A. D. M. (F and R ). ( 6 ) THERE was no occasion for the Commissioner to distinguish the case of the petitioner nor there was anything which could have deprived the petitioner from getting the same treatment which was given to other two transferees. ( 7 ) THERE seems to be substantial justification in what has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. The Impugned order of the Commissioner, therefore, suffers from patent illegality. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 5. 8. 1998 is liable to be quashed. There seems to be justification in the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner that since the order dated 5. 8. 1998 is being quashed, the matter be referred to the A. D. M. [f and R) as the remand of case to the Commissioner will only delay the proceedings. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5. 8. 1998 is quashed. The order dated 27. 9. 1995 passed by the A. D. M. (F and R) is also quashed and the case is remanded for rehearing to the A. D. M. (F and R) who will obtain a report from Tehsil in respect of the transferred land will afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and after rehearing the same, the question of valuation of the transferred land will be decided by the A. D. M. (F and R), expeditiously. .