JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Collector passed under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the order of Commissioner passed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act in revision filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had purchased 626 sq. meters from plot No. 590 through a sale deed executed on 6-10-2005. Notice was issued to the petitioner to which the objection was filed on 27-6-2006. Thereafter a spot inspection was made and report of the Lekhpal was submitted on 15-4-2008. The Deputy Collector proceeded to determine the deficiency in stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 16,440/- and same amount was imposed as penalty with Rs. 3,140/- was determined as deficiency in the registration fee plus 1.5 per cent interest was also directed to be charged. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56(1-A). After affirming the order of the Collector, the Commissioner dismissed the revision. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that the plot in question is situated on a running road in Mustafabad. According to the circle rate declared by the Collector, the rate applicable to the plots upto 20 meters from the road is Rs 450 per sq. meter and property which is beyond the 20 meters from the road, the circle rate is a little less and therefore, the stamp duty so paid is sufficient. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent has justified the order of the Collector passed under Section 47-A(3) on the ground that the petitioner purchased one plot measuring 626 sq. meter through one sale deed. The said plot is on the road side and for the same plot two rates cannot be applied. The plot in question is on the road side and therefore the entire plot is taken to be on the road. There appears to be some substance in the argument raised by the learned Standing Counsel that since the property in question is only one property which is situated on the road, the same rate would be applicable for the entire area. It cannot be bifurcated or divided into two even more due to the fact that the sale has been executed through one sale deed. 6. It cannot be bifurcated or divided into two even more due to the fact that the sale has been executed through one sale deed. 6. Under these circumstances, I do not see any error in the order of the Collector which does not require any interference under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and similarly no error is found in the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act. 7. Hence, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————