JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against an order passed in Revision No. 189/1997-98, under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad, dated 6.2.2002, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, preferred against an order dated 23.5.1997, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition and Irrigation), Ghaziabad by which additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,155/- and penalty of Rs. 5/- was imposed on the petitioner. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner purchased a part of Plot No. 78, Khata No. 196, Village Doyami, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, District Ghaziabad from one Rajesh Kumar, Son of Tara Chand paying sale consideration of Rs.1,93,500/-Petitioner paid Rs. 28,060/- stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 72,000/- per Pukhta Bigha in accordance with the Circle Rate fixed by the Collector at relevant time. He further urged that remaining part of the same Plot was purchased by one Smt. Punam at the same rate and the stamp duty already paid was found sufficient by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue while allowing the revision preferred by Smt. Punam which was registered as Revision No. 190/1997-98. He further urged that said judgment of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was filed alongwith an Application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who admitted the same as additional evidence, but the said judgment was not taken into account while deciding the Revision of petitioner and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority wrongly and illegally dismissing revision of petitioner affirming the order passed by Additional Collector (Land Acquisition and Irrigation), Ghaziabad. It is lastly urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order otherwise also suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and is liable to be quashed. 4. In reply to the same, learned Standing Counsel urged that in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, which is Application filed by the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, there is no mention of date of filing of the Application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue and as such there is nothing on record to show that this judgment was part of the record of Revision filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and, therefore, the said judgment/order was rightly not taken note of. 5. 5. In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Paragraph-16 of the writ petition, reply of which has been given in Paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit and urged that this fact has not been specifically denied in the Counter-affidavit that certified copy of the judgment/order alongwith the application was not filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue. He also referred Paragraph-11 of the Rejoinder Affidavit by which averments made in Paragraph-16 of the writ petition have been specifically reiterated with full detail. 6. On considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and carefully going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that Smt. Punal purchased a part of Plot No. 78, measuring 2 Bigha 13 Biswa 14 Biswansi and petitioner also purchased the remaining half share of the same plot on 16.8.1992 and paid stamp duty at the same rate. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue by the judgment dated 14.1.2000 recorded a specific finding that the circle rate fixed for the purposes for calculating stamp duty by the Collector was Rs. 72,000/- only per Bigha, but the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority while deciding the revision of petitioner, recorded a different finding relating to Circle Rate for calculating Stamp duty of same plot as Rs. 3,60,000/- per Bigha without considering judgment dated 14.1.2000. The judgment dated 14.1.2000 was passed against the State and has force of Res judicata. It is surprising that the same authority recorded two different circle rates as regard to sale deeds fixing different circle rates of the Collector. This Court also perused the Chart of Circle Rate of Village Doyami, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, District Ghaziabad fixed by the Collector and from the materials on record, I am satisfied that the judgment dated 14.1.2000 of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue in the Revision of Smt. Punam was rightly passed in accordance with law. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue acted illegally in recording different finding in the subsequent Revision about the sale deed of same date of same Plot. 7. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue acted illegally in recording different finding in the subsequent Revision about the sale deed of same date of same Plot. 7. It is also important to notice here that the Paragraph-16 of the writ petition stating therein that certified copy of the judgment/order was part of the record of Revision filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue as additional evidence and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority without application of mind and considering its earlier judgment wrongly dismissed Revision of petitioner. Paragraph-16 of the writ petition has been replied in Paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit and the averment made in Paragraph-16 of the writ petition has not been denied in Paragraph-13 of the Counter-affidavit. It has only been averred in Paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit that the contents of Paragraph-16 are not admitted and the every case is decided on the ground and merit. In such circumstances, averments made in Paragraph-16 of the writ petition shall be treated to be admitted as provided under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 8, Rule 5(1) is relevant in this regard and is being reproduced below for ready reference : “5. Specific denial.—(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability.” 8. Law relating to pleading in writ petition has laid down by the Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181 , Dallu v. State of Haryana. Part of Paragraph-13 of the judgment of the Apex Court is being reproduced below : “13................,,...........In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants I not entertainable it to show that it is devoid of any merit.” 9. In the instant case, State in Paragraph-13 of its counter-affidavit has not denied averments made in Paragraph-16 of the writ petition, the argument of learned Standing Counsel that there is no mention of date in the application cannot be accepted. 10. With the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.2002, passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue and order dated 23.5.1997, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition and Irrigation), Ghaziabad are quashed. The stamp duty paid by the petitioner is held sufficient. No order as to cost. ————