JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.6.1997 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Shahjahanpur (in short, ‘ADM’) in stamp case No. 215/1992-Bhavan (State v. Jahid Ali and others) and order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in revision No. 92 of 1997 (Shahid Ali and others v. State). vide order dated 28.6.1997, the ADM has found the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 48,785.50, whereas by the subsequent order dated 12.5.1999, the petitioner’s revision against the order dated 28.6.1997 has been dismissed. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that sale-deed No. 3198 was executed in the year 1991 and the stamp duty was paid on the consideration of Rs. 1, 10, 000/-. Sub Registrar, Sadar made a reference under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, ‘the Act’) and the same was decided under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act. From the perusal of the judgment of the ADM, it also transpires that the authority has sent a letter for determining the valuation of the property on 26.12.1992, but the same was not supplied to the authority till the date of the judgment dated 28.6.1997. The ADM, in these circumstances, it appears, made a spot inspection on 21.6.1997 and found that the land, including the house, is situated in a commercial area, as there are number of shops in the vicinity of that land and treating it as commercial area, has assessed the valuation of the land himself Rs. 4, 06,120/- on the basis of the circle rate fixed by the Collector for commercial area of Rs. 5,200/- per square meter. 4. On the basis of the spot inspection, the ADM came to the conclusion that only 78.10 square meter land has been purchased by the petitioner, who are four in number, therefore, the land has not been purchased for residential purpose and on the basis of the spot inspection report, he concluded that the same has been purchased for commercial purpose and passed the impugned order dated 28.6.1997. 5. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed revision. 5. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed revision. In the revision, specific ground has been taken that in the year 1992, when sale-deed was executed, neither there was any shop in the vicinity of the house in dispute nor there was any commercial establishment. However, during these five years, some shops have been constructed. It is also stated that merely by construction of one or two shops, the area cannot be treated to be a commercial area. It was also stated that Mohalla Tarin Bahadurgunj and Tarin Tikli are two separate Mohallas and most of the commercial establishments are in Mohalla Tarin Bahadurgunj. The Nursing Home, Shops etc., which have been found during the spot inspection, are situated in Mohalla Tarin Bahadur, whereas the house in question is situated in Mohalla Tarin Tikli, which is about 300 meter away from Mohalla Tarin Bahadur. It is also stated that the spot inspection memo was prepared by none else except the ADM and copy of the same was not given to the petitioner. The Commissioner, while dismissing the revision, did not address himself on this point and dismissed the revision. 6. Sri Asthana contended that admittedly, the sale-deed was executed in the year 1992 and the spot inspection memo was prepared on 21.6.1997, after five years of the execution of the sale-deed. In his submissions, once there was specific objection of the petitioner that when the house in question was purchased, there was no shop or commercial establishments in the vicinity of the house in question, the Commissioner, without recording the specific finding to the effect that the shops and the commercial establishments are existing since 1992, could not pass his judgment on the basis of the finding recorded by the ADM, which was recorded only after spot inspection dated 21.6.1997; that too only by himself. He has also submitted that for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the stamp duty could be assessed on the basis of the report dated 21.6.1997, even then, a notice was required to the petitioner to reply this fact as to whether the house in question is situated in commercial area or residential area. He has also submitted that for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the stamp duty could be assessed on the basis of the report dated 21.6.1997, even then, a notice was required to the petitioner to reply this fact as to whether the house in question is situated in commercial area or residential area. The ADM had not given any notice in this regard to the petitioner and has based his judgment on the basis of spot inspection report, copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner and when the petitioner took the specific objection to the findings that the house in dispute was not situated in the commercial area when it was purchased in the year 1992, the Commissioner, without addressing himself on this point, dismissed the revision. In the submissions of Sri Asthana, both the orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel had tried to justify the orders on the ground that since in the vicinity of the petitioner’s house, there is commercial establishment, therefore, the valuation has been fixed on the basis of prevailing circle rate for commercial purpose. He has also submitted that when the spot inspection memo was prepared in the presence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to require the copy of the spot inspection memo, but he did not demand the same, therefore, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own mistake. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and other relevant records. 9. It is undisputed fact that instrument in question is a deed of conveyance and was executed in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that when the matter was taken up, after the reference by the ADM, the ADM vide letter dated 26.12.1992, had required the valuation of the house in dispute for the purposes of payment of stamp duty, but the same was not provided till the date of the decision, i.e., 28.6.1997. 10. It is also not in dispute that when the matter was taken up, after the reference by the ADM, the ADM vide letter dated 26.12.1992, had required the valuation of the house in dispute for the purposes of payment of stamp duty, but the same was not provided till the date of the decision, i.e., 28.6.1997. 10. There is no detail on record as to whether any effort has been made by the ADM to get the report with regard to the valuation of the house in question and it appears, that is why the ADM himself has made the spot inspection on 21.6.1997 after five years of the institution of the case and found existence of shops, Nursing Home, etc. in the vicinity of the petitioner’s house. He has no where recorded, in his judgment, that these shops, Nursing Home, etc. are existing since 1992 or even prior to that. The petitioner had raised a specific ground in the revision that in the year 1992, when house in question was purchased, there was no shop or commercial establishments at all. It is also stated that the area where the house is situated is not commercial area and is residential area. Although these grounds were not available before the ADM, but for the simple reason that he did not supply the copy of the spot inspection memo on which basis he has formed his opinion, it could neither be raised before him nor considered. 11. It is settled law that stamp duty on an instrument is to be charged on the basis of valuation of land on the date of execution of the deed. 12. In view of the absence of the finding to the effect that the house in dispute was situated in commercial area in the year 1992 and it was declared commercial area, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the ADM is vitiated. In the case of Smt. Anasuya Singh v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another, 2008 (104) RD 725, this Court has held that the agricultural land situated at road side in semi urban area cannot be treated as commercial or residential unless the area is declared as commercial or residential in the master plan prepared by the State Government. 13. In the case of Smt. Anasuya Singh v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another, 2008 (104) RD 725, this Court has held that the agricultural land situated at road side in semi urban area cannot be treated as commercial or residential unless the area is declared as commercial or residential in the master plan prepared by the State Government. 13. So far as the revisional Court judgment is concerned, suffice it to say, the revisional Court inspite of the specific ground taken in the revision did not address itself on these points as to whether in the year 1992, when the land was purchased, the existing shops and Nursing Home were also existing or not and based his judgment on the basis of the report prepared in the year 1997, which was prepared after five years of the execution of the sale-deed. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner suffers from non-consideration of the relevant material for deciding the controversy, which also amounts to denial of proper opportunity of hearing and vitiated on account of breach of principle of natural justice. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in revision No. 92 of 1997 (Shahid Ali and others v. State) and order dated 28.6.1997 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Shahjahanpur in stamp case No. 215/1992-Bhavan (State v. Jahid Ali and others) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed. 15. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 16. The amount, if any, deposited before the revisional Court be returned to the petitioner. —————