Judgment : State of Uttarakhand has invoked Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2014, passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun whereby valuation made and stamp duty paid on the sale deed dated 29th February, 2008 was held to be perfectly valid and correct as per the circle rates fixed by the Collector, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondents herein have purchased land belonging to Khata No. 94, Khasra No. 788, measuring 4 bighas Village Ranipur, Pargana Jawalapur, District Haridwar from the then bhumidhar Vikas Mittal for Rs. 8 lacs. Valuation of the property was made @ Rs. 25 lacs per hectares whereupon stamp duty of Rs. 80,100/- were paid. Vendees / respondents thereafter were summoned by the learned Collector in Case No. 26/2007-8 to show cause as to why they may not be asked to pay deficit stamp duty of 18,33,100/-. Vendees / respondents appeared before the learned Collector and submitted their show cause / written statement. However, learned Collector was pleased to direct the vendees / respondents herein to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.18,33,100/- and penalty of the same amount, total amounting to Rs.36,66,200/-. Feeling aggrieved vendees / respondents herein preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 21st April, 2014. Feeling aggrieved, State Government has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. Undisputedly sale deed was executed and was presented for registration on 29.02.2008 before the Sub Registrar, Haridwar. Undisputedly, land sold vide sale deed, in question, is a part of Khata No. 94, Khasra No. 788, measuring 0.2733 hectares (4 bighas), Village Ranipur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Undisputedly, as per the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the period 3rd March, 2008 to 31st October, 2009, valuation of land of khasra No. 788 of Village Ranipur was fixed as 25 lacs per hectares. Learned Board of Revenue, having placed reliance on the circle rate fixed by the Collector, Column No. 18, page No. 18 thereof, was pleased to allow the revision petition vide impugned judgment in the present petition. 4. Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. Learned Board of Revenue, having placed reliance on the circle rate fixed by the Collector, Column No. 18, page No. 18 thereof, was pleased to allow the revision petition vide impugned judgment in the present petition. 4. Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C., while referring to Clause 17 of General Instructions at page No. 30 of the circle rate, has vehemently argued that as per Clause 17, if land is situated within 350 meter from main roads, then the land would be considered as Abadi land and valuation thereof shall be made as per the circle rates as applicable to the Abadi land. Further contends that since land, in question, situated on the national highways Delhi-Haridwar, therefore, as per Clause 17 of the General Instructions of the circle rates, vendees / respondents herein ought to have paid stamp duty after fixing the valuation as per the circle rates prevailing for the Abadi land. 5. Undisputedly, in the circle rates fixed by the Collector, Haridwar at page No. 18, column, No. 18, khasra No. 788 of Village Ranipur is mentioned as agricultural land and valuation (circle rates) thereof is assessed as Rs. 25 lacs per hectares. It means if we read Clause 18 of page No. 18 alongwith general instructions in Clause No. 17, the only interpretation would be that land of those khasra numbers which are not part of column No. 18, if are situated on the main roads, valuation thereof shall be made as per the rates prevailing for the Abadi land. However, if khasra numbers are shown in column No. 18 as agricultural land, then valuation thereof shall be assessed as per the rates fixed by the Collector in Column No. 18. 6. In the present case, learned Board of Revenue has assessed valuation as per the column No. 18 which cannot be said to be incorrect or unjustified. Therefore, I do not find any ground to take contrary view to the view taken by the Board of Revenue. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.