JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Commissioner Stamp dated 20.07.2011, imposing deficiency of stamp duty and penalty etc. on sale deed dated 28.06.2010 of the petitioners and Commissioner dated 26.07.2012, dismissing, appeal of the petitioners, against aforesaid order. 3. The petitioners purchased plot 1904 (area 1.0530 hectare) (out of its total area 1.0910 hectare) and 1/4th share in plot 1907 (area 0.3670 hectare) (out of total area 1.1450 hectare) situated in village Semar Patta, pargana Dalmau, district Raibareli, from its owner Deshraj through registered sale deed dated 28.06.2010. In the sale deed, it has been mentioned that both the plots were contiguous and boundary of the land sold was mentioned. According to the provisions of Section 27 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule-6 of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), plot numbers, area, land revenue, nature of land and the fact that in the transferred land three mango trees and three mahua trees and one submersible pump were situated, were mentioned, which valuation have been separately disclosed. Valuation of the land was assessed at the rate of Circle Rate fixed by the Collector, for the locality for the land in the vicinity of 100 meters from abadi and on roadside. Agreed sale consideration was disclosed to Rs. 10,00,000/- but valuation of Rs. 23,98,000/-was determined for payment of stamp duty, calculated at the rate prescribed in Circle Rate for agricultural land situated on roadside within 100 meters of the abadi land and stamp duty was paid accordingly. 4. When the deed was presented for registration, Sub-Registrar was not satisfied with the market value. He allegedly conducted an inquiry and submitted his report, stating therein that in an area of 255.76 sq. meter of plot 1907, there was a tin shed construction for poultry farm and in a part of plot 1904, house of the transferor was existing. Market value of the land and construction of poultry farm was Rs. 11,31,738/-. Total valuation of the land at the rate of abadi land was Rs. 20,61,000/- Total market value was assessed to Rs. 2,18,48,738 and deficiency of stamp was assesses as Rs. Market value of the land and construction of poultry farm was Rs. 11,31,738/-. Total valuation of the land at the rate of abadi land was Rs. 20,61,000/- Total market value was assessed to Rs. 2,18,48,738 and deficiency of stamp was assesses as Rs. 9,72,550/- On this report, Assistant Commissioner Stamp initiated proceedings (registered as Case No. 166 of 2010-11) under Section 47-A (3) of the Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioners. 5. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notice and stated that property in the sale deed was vacant agricultural land only. House and tin shed constructions of poultry farm were not included in it as is clear from the area as well as boundaries of the transferred land as mentioned in the sale deed. Ex-parte report of Sub-Registrar was not admissible in evidence. Market value of the transferred land was correctly mentioned in the sale deed. Assistant Commissioner Stamp, by order dated 20.07.2011 held that a part of the transferred land was being used as abadi as such transferred land was required to be valued at the rate of abadi land. Area of transferred land was found as 11450 sq. meter and its valuation was determined at the rate of 1800/- per sq. meter. On the basis of the report, he assessed market value of the transferred land as Rs. 2,06,10,000/- and together with the valuation of trees and submersible pump was assessed as Rs. 2,18,49,000/- and imposed stamp duty of Rs. 9,25,550/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was imposed upon deficient stamp. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 259 of 2011-2012) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of Commissioner, dated 27.06.2012. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The petitioners denied regarding tin shed construction for poultry farm in a part of plot 1904, being included in the transferred land. Total area plot 1904 was 1.0910 hectare out of which an area 1.0530 hectare was transferred to the petitioners. The petitioners have stated that the remaining area, in which tin shed poultry farm was existing was retained by the owner and was not transferred to him, which is clear from boundary of the transferred land as mentioned in the sale deed. Assistant Commissioner Stamp did not conduct any inquiry. The petitioners have stated that the remaining area, in which tin shed poultry farm was existing was retained by the owner and was not transferred to him, which is clear from boundary of the transferred land as mentioned in the sale deed. Assistant Commissioner Stamp did not conduct any inquiry. It may be mentioned that cost of tin shed construction was neither assessed nor included in total valuation. Ex parte report of Sub-Registrar was not admissible in evidence as held by this Court in Ram Khelawan Vs. State of U.P., 2005 (98) RD 511 . In this case, apart from the report of Sub-Registrar, there is no other material on record. Thus the findings is based upon no evidence. 7. Admittedly, transferred land is agricultural land and is recorded as such in the revenue record. By the impugned order, its valuation was assessed at the rate of abadi land as in part of it, a tin shed poultry farm and house of transferor was existing. Supreme Court in Prakashwati (Smt.) Vs. Chief Controller (Revenue), (1996) 4 SCC 657 held that the house is built on a very small area i.e. 68.84 sq. yards only in a town which is not a metropolis. Presumably the smallness of the area would not suggest the same by itself to be a costly property or be situated in a prestigious or posh locality, where the upper classes would rub shoulders to acquire it. Secondly, its being situated in an area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be a decent locality, where people of high income group reside, does not by itself make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price of the property in question. Seemingly, influenced by the factor of the close proximity of Samrat Vikram Colony, the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, for one does not know how, determined the monthly rental value of the property at Rs 1500 per mensem and worked out the price of the house on that basis. 8. The petitioners assessed the market value, according to the rate as prescribed for the land in vicinity of 100 meters of abadi land on road as prescribed in Circle Rate fixed by the Collector. Thus the market value for the purposes of stamp duty was assessed in the manner as provided in Circle Rate. 8. The petitioners assessed the market value, according to the rate as prescribed for the land in vicinity of 100 meters of abadi land on road as prescribed in Circle Rate fixed by the Collector. Thus the market value for the purposes of stamp duty was assessed in the manner as provided in Circle Rate. By the impugned order, Assistant Commissioner Stamp assessed the valuation to Rs. 2,18,49,000/- and the stamp duty about equal to sale consideration. Actual sale consideration, as mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 10,00,000/-. State of U.P. may not be ready to purchase the land in dispute for this amount. Exercise of power in such a manner has been deprecated by Division Bench in Kishore Chandra Agrawal Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (104) RD 235 (DB) saying that public functionaries should be duty conscious rather than the power charged. If in future the land in dispute is acquired for public purpose, it will be impossible for State to give compensation at the rate so fixed. 9. So far as the nature of the land on the date of sale deed is concerned, land in dispute was recorded as agricultural land in revenue record. Khasra is being prepared by Revenue Department in exercise of statutory duty. Paragraphs-A-55 to A-73 of U.P. Land Record Manual give detail procedure for preparation of khasra. Paragraph-A-59, partal of 'rabi' season has to be completed up to 30th April. Under Paragraphs-A-72 and A-73, the land use is required to be mentioned. In discharge of official duty, if lekhpal reported the land being an agricultural land and no constructions and trees were reported, it will not be open to the Collector to say that land was used for residential purposes, without there being any contrary evidence on record. 10. Under Paragraphs-A-72 and A-73, the land use is required to be mentioned. In discharge of official duty, if lekhpal reported the land being an agricultural land and no constructions and trees were reported, it will not be open to the Collector to say that land was used for residential purposes, without there being any contrary evidence on record. 10. Supreme Court in Chandrika Singh v. Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1318 , held that the question as to whether a particular land is "land" under Section 2(14) to which the provisions of the Act are applicable would require determination of the question whether the land is held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry and that is a matter which has to be determined either in accordance with the provisions of Sections 143 and 144 and if such a determination has not been made and such a question arises or is raised in a suit before a court, the procedure laid down in Section 331-A must be followed by the court. This would be so even in a case where a building exists on the land and the land is claimed to be appurtenant to the building because in such a case it will be necessary to determine the extent of the land that is appurtenant to the building, i.e. whether the entire land or only a part of it is so appurtenant to the building and for that reason is not held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. In view of entry in the Khatauni for the year 1377 F (Ex. A-1) which must be presumed to be correct in view of Section 44 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the said land was held by the respondents as Bhumidar. The question whether the suit land is or is not held for purposes connected with agriculture arises in the suit filed by the respondents. There is no declaration in relation to land in dispute under Section 143 of the Act. The question whether the suit land is or is not held for purposes connected with agriculture arises in the suit filed by the respondents. There is no declaration in relation to land in dispute under Section 143 of the Act. It was, therefore, not open to the Civil Judge to decide, on its own, the question whether the said land was held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry and after holding that it is not so held refuse to follow the procedure laid down in Section 331-A on the ground that the said provision has no application to the land in dispute. 11. Issue as to whether in absence of any declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the land recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record can be treated as non- agricultural land for the purposes of stamp duty, came for consideration before this Court in Smt. Neelam Gupta Vs. Commissioner, 2007 (102) RD 147 . This Court held that only on the basis of report of Additional Collector, the land recorded in the revenue record as agricultural land cannot be treated as non-agricultural land. This judgment has been consistently followed by this Court in Veer Bal Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (109) RD 124, Smt. Kusum Lata Jaisawal Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (109) RD 414 , Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (28) LCD 945 , Misc. Single No. 1793 of 2008, Suresh Kumar Vs. Commissioner and others, decided on 24.04.2013. Even in Kishore Chandra Jaiswal's case (supra) Division Bench held that in exercise of powers under the Act, the Collector has no jurisdiction to held an agricultural land as non-agricultural land. 12. Supreme Court in District Registrar Vs. Canara Bank, AIR 2005 SC 186 and Chiranji Lal (Dr.) Vs. Hari Das, AIR 2005 SC 2564 , relying upon the judgment of Privy Council in Surajmull Nagoremull v. Triton Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1925 PC 83 held that it clear that the provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be held to have been framed solely for the protection of revenue and for the purpose of being enforced solely at the instance of the revenue officials. Ltd., AIR 1925 PC 83 held that it clear that the provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be held to have been framed solely for the protection of revenue and for the purpose of being enforced solely at the instance of the revenue officials. Power to impound a document and to recover duty with or without penalty thereon has to be construed strictly and would be sustained only when falling within the four corners and letter of the law. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Assistant Commissioner Stamp dated 20.07.2011 and Commissioner dated 26.07.2012 are set aside. The Collector is directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioners within a period of two months.