Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.: - Heard Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Under challenge in the writ petition is the orders dated 10.04.2008 and 05.12.2005 passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2005 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, District Barabanki. 3. The petitioners had in fact purchased the agricultural land and the sale deed of the plot i.e. 6/7th part of plot no. 1295 situated at Village Jauras, Haidergarh, District Barabanki was executed on 12.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records. It is alleged that subsequently after the execution of the sale deed the authorities had taken suo motu proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act with respect to alleged deficiency in the stamp duty in the purchase of the plot in question. In this regard Tehsildar, Haidergarh had submitted the report regarding the deficiency of the stamp mentioning therein that the land in question is being used for industrial purpose. In this regard the opposite party no.3 had issued the notice under section 47-A dated 6.07.2005 to the petitioners to which a reply was submitted by the petitioners on 05.09.2005 The Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Barabanki had made spot inspection on 19.11.2005 and thereafter by order dated 05.12.2005 the order enforcing the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 1,29,580/- was passed. It was in pursuance of the said order that the petitioners had deposited the Rs. 50,000/- on 15.09.2007. 4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved had filed the appeal under section 47-A/33. In the said appeal it was specifically pleased that the land in question is an agricultural land and at the time of the execution of the sale deed it was registered as agricultural land in revenue records. 50,000/- on 15.09.2007. 4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved had filed the appeal under section 47-A/33. In the said appeal it was specifically pleased that the land in question is an agricultural land and at the time of the execution of the sale deed it was registered as agricultural land in revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the impugned order dated 05.12.2005 is manifestly wrong and illegal as unless a declaration is made under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, declaring the land to be as commercial or industrial land, the opposite parties cannot presume it to be an industrial land and demand the stamp duty treating it to be industrial land. 5. Sri M. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has submitted that from the report dated 27.04.2005 of Tehsildar, Haidergarh and the inspection report of A.D.M., Finance & Revenue, Barabanki, it is very much clear that the land in question was being used for the purpose of brick kiln and the land being used for commercial purposes. The stamp duty shall be paid treating the land in question as industrial/commercial land. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument has admitted that after the execution of sale deed of the land in question, certain portion is agricultural and some portion of the land is being used for brick kiln. 7. The sole question for consideration before this Court with respect to the purpose of determining the stamp duty on the land in question is as to whether the authorities were right to demand the stamp duty treating the land in question to be as industrial/commercial or whether the land in question should be treated as agricultural land as recorded in the revenue records, for the purpose of determining the stamp duty. 8. I have considered the various submissions made by the parties concerned. 9. From the records it is evident that the sale deed of the land in question was executed on 12.10.2004 and on the date of execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land. 8. I have considered the various submissions made by the parties concerned. 9. From the records it is evident that the sale deed of the land in question was executed on 12.10.2004 and on the date of execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention towards the Annexure No.8 of the writ petition which is Khasra of the year 1411 Fasli clearly demarcating the land as agricultural land showing certain crops of wheat, Arhar and Dhan on the land in question. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the decisions passed in the case of: Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others [2009(42) LCD 442], Smt. Ansuya Singh vs. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another [2008 (26) LCD 588] and Smt. Neelam Gupta vs. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and others [2007 (25) LCD 36] wherein it has been held by this Court that the nature of the land under the instrument should be considered on the date of execution of the instrument and not the future use to which the land may be put to. Moreover, it has been held that the land cannot be treated to be industrial or commercial unless a declaration under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is made. 11. Under section 143, the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub Division has been given power to initiate suo motu action or on an application, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed against the land holder who is using his holding or part thereof for any purpose other than the agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry and a declaration to the effect that the holding has been converted to commercial or industrial or residentially shall be passed. Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. is quoted as under: "143. Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes.- (1) Where a [bhumidhar with transferable rights] uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-Division may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect. (1-A) Where a declaration under sub-section (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub Division may in the manner prescribed demarcate such part of the purposes of such declaration. (2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1) the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the [bhumidhar with transferable rights with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. [(3) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights has been granted, before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978, any loan by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or by any other Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, on the security of any land held by such bhumidhar, the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to such bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject]. 12. It is very much clear that the land in question at the time of the execution of the sale deed was agricultural land and, therefore, the stamp duty shall be payable treating it to be the agricultural land. In case the land use of certain portion of the land in question has been changed the authorities under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are fully empowered to initiate proceeding for declaring the said portion of the land as industrial/commercial or residential, meaning thereby that in case the use of agricultural land has been changed to commercial or industrial, the authorities shall first initiate proceeding under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for making the declaration to the said effect and only thereafter charge the stamp duty treating the land as industrial or commercial or residential as the case may be. In the present case no such declaration under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been made, hence the stamp duty on the land in question shall be payable treating it as agricultural land. 13. In case the land, use of the land in question has been changed it is open for the authorities to initiate proceedings under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 13. In case the land, use of the land in question has been changed it is open for the authorities to initiate proceedings under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 14. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the orders dated 05.12.2005 and 10.04.2008 passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 2 respectively are wrong and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The orders dated 05.12.2005 and 10.04.2008 annexed as Annexure Nos. 2 & 1 to the writ petition are hereby set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to get refund of the amount deposited in pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2005, if any. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.