Rajiv Sharma, J.:- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness and validity of the order dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Collector, Faizabad in Case No. 1100/467(2002-03) under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Appel­late Order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad in Appeal No. 151/2002-03 pre­ferred under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. It is stated by the Counsel for the petitioner that on 28.8.2000, a registered sale deed regarding plot No. 442 area 0.614 hectare of agricultural holding recorded as bhumidhari holding was executed in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- on which appropriate stamp duty of Rs. 49,200/- as applicable to the agricul­tural holdings was paid. 4. Consequently, a show cause no­tice was issued to the petitioner for enhance­ment of stamp duty on the above sale deed as the petitioner had set up a cold storage on small area of the aforesaid land. The above case was transferred to the Collector, Faizabad, to which the petitioner filed his objections. 5. The Collector not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner passed the order dated 27.1.2003 requiring the petitioner to pay additional duty of Rs. 5,99,400/-including penalty of Rs. 10,000/-and also imposed interest @ 1.5 percent from the date of execution of the aforesaid deed. This order was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad, who confirmed the order of the Collector vide order dated 13.1.2003 and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot be two market values of a property at a particular time - one for realizing the stamp duty and the other for payment of compensation, if land is acquired. If circle rate is not to be taken into consid­eration while determining market value in land acquisition cases, then it can also not be considered while determining the correct valuation of the property. 7. It was also argued that unless the land use of the property in question is changed by a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act the land cannot be treated to be the 'abadi' land. 8. 7. It was also argued that unless the land use of the property in question is changed by a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act the land cannot be treated to be the 'abadi' land. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Smt. Anasuya Singh v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division and another [2008 (26) LCD 588]. 9. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Collector, Faizabad in Case No. 1100/46/(2002-03) under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Appellate Order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the Chief Control­ling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad in Appeal No. 151/2002-03 preferred under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act are hereby quashed. Consequences shall follow.