ORDER : Leave granted. The appellant had purchased certain properties vide sale deed dated 29th march, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. After the sale deed was executed, the Assistant Commissioner Stamp conducted an enquiry on 23rd April, 2011 with regard to the situation, the nature and the market value of the land and submitted a report stating, inter alia, that the land covered under the sale deed had been deliberately described as agricultural land for paying less stamp duty though it had potentialities of an urban land. The Assistant Stamp Commissioner was of view that there was deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5,54,350/- as the value of the land as per the market rate was Rs. 1,17,16,250/-. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Collector issued a show cause notice along with the report of the Assistant Stamp Commissioner to the appellant requiring him to offer his explanation indicating why the price of the should not be enhanced and the deficit stamp duty be paid by him. As is evincible the appellant participated in the enquiry and the collector upon hearing parties, accepted the report of the Assistant Stamp commissioner and accordingly levied the stamp duty. In appeal the appellate forum concurred with the view expressed by the collector. Being grieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition and before the writ court it was contended that the ex parte report of the Assistant Stamp Commissioner had formed the basis of the conclusion recorded by the Collector without independent application of mind, and therefore, the order passed by him is vulnerable and consequently the affirmation of the same by the Commissioner is vitiated. The High Court took note of the fact that the report would show that there is construction on the land in question and there is a Notification with regard to the circle rate. Thereafter, the High Court made distinction between the circle rate, and the market value and came to hold as follows:- "So far as the issue of report being ex-parte is concerned this Court specially asked the counsel as to whether the petitioner disputes the facts recorded in the report or not. The counsel could not point out any relevant material for disputing the correctness of the facts recorded in the report. The counsel could not point out any relevant material for disputing the correctness of the facts recorded in the report. In such circumstances even if any opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner there would have been no change so far as the physical situation of the property under transfer is concerned. Opportunity in these set of facts would only be an empty formality. The case relief upon by the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts of the case. In totality of the circumstances as noticed above the finding that the land had the potential for residential purpose found to be based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be bad so as to warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 3. We have heard Mr. Pramod Swarup learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shukla learned counsel for the State. 4. As far as the report of the Assistant Stamp Commissioner is concerned, the same had to be treated as a reference by the Collector indicating that the sale deed had been under valued. At that stage, a beneficiary under the sale deed is not to be afforded any opportunity. The show cause notice was issued by the Collector annexing the said report and requiring the appellant to submit his explanation by putting forth his sand. Thus, there can no shadow of doubt that the principles of natural justice had been complied with. 5. The only issue that really requires to be adverted to is whether the area is agricultural land and there had been change of user and what is the price fixed for the agricultural land in the said area. That aspect has not been adverted to by the authorities. The High Court has accepted the version of the authorities keeping in view the potentiality of the land. It is urged by Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel that the appellant had purchased the property from a Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 under which the use of the land could not be changed unless requisite permission is obtained under Section 143 of the said Act, and hence, it has to be treated as an agricultural land. Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel that the appellant had purchased the property from a Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 under which the use of the land could not be changed unless requisite permission is obtained under Section 143 of the said Act, and hence, it has to be treated as an agricultural land. It is put forth by him that the market value has to be determined as per the value fixed or the market value of the agricultural land and the authorities could not have taken recourse to any other enquiry to come to a different conclusion on the foundation that it has the potentiality of an urban land. If there is permissibility of user by any other means apart from the permission sought under Section 143 of the 1951 Act, the matter would be totally different. It is also to be seen whether the land in question has come within the urban agglomeration either by notification or by use. All these aspects are required to be gone into but the High Court as we notice has only adverted to the existence of construction and opined that it is an urban land and accordingly the orders passed by the authorities below has been given the stamp of approval. 6. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case where the High Court should have dwelled upon the issues in a proper prospective requiring the State Government to put forth the material on record that there has been a change of user or there are other contemporaneous sale deeds in respect of adjacent area and the market value has been increased or there has been a change in the agricultural land to the urban agglomeration and such other ancillary aspects. Therefore, we think it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to it for consideration from all the spectrums while appreciating the legal validity of the orders passed by the authorities. We may repeat at the cost of the repetition that we have remitted the matter as we have noticed that the authorities have passed the order on the assumption that this is an urban land or has the potentiality of the urban land. We may repeat at the cost of the repetition that we have remitted the matter as we have noticed that the authorities have passed the order on the assumption that this is an urban land or has the potentiality of the urban land. The determination of the urban land is dependent on many a factor and, therefore, we remit the matter to the High Court with a request that it should advert to all the aspects. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.