JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Registered sale-deed dated 3.9.2011 was executed by vendors Ranvir Singh, Satvir Singh, Rakam Singh and Ashok son of late Fatte Singh in favour of petitioner Ashwani Kumar son of Kailash Chandra Verma, by which agricultural land of Khasra No. 262, Khatauni No. 00237 situated in village Noornagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut, area 1.1210 hectare was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,34,52,000/-. This sale-deed was executed for the agricultural Bhumidhari land. It was mentioned in said sale-deed that property being sold is agricultural land and it is being sold for the agricultural purposes, and there is no tree or boring on this land, but there exists a private tube-well, and it is irrigated by private tube-well, and also that this land is not situated over national highway, district road or link road and not within area of 200 meters of Abadi. Admittedly, at the time of registration of said sale-deed, proper stamp fees was paid according to circle rate prescribed by Collector. 2. After execution of said sale-deed Stamp Case No. 75/13-14/V-03/2012-13, under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was registered and Collector (Stamp) issued notice to petitioner by which petitioner was required to pay additional stamp-duty for aforesaid sale-deed. 3. Against said notice, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 23.9.2013 in said stamp case, through which it was stated that he had purchased the land through said sale-deed for purposes of agricultural and has been cultivated the same. Even according to report submitted before the Court (of respondent), the agricultural use was found over said land. Said land was being used for agricultural purposes at the time of purchase, and also at the time of inspection and proper stamp-duty was paid according to circle rate of such land; therefore the notice should be discharged. This objection submitted by petitioner in aforesaid stamp case was supported with his affidavit. 4. Said land was being used for agricultural purposes at the time of purchase, and also at the time of inspection and proper stamp-duty was paid according to circle rate of such land; therefore the notice should be discharged. This objection submitted by petitioner in aforesaid stamp case was supported with his affidavit. 4. After receiving reply of notice and affording opportunity of hearing, the respondent No. 3 Collector (Stamp) had passed judgment dated 27.2.2015 in aforesaid stamp case (new No. V-03/2013 D 2013115200746), by which it was held that the land purchased through sale-deed in question is situated near under construction residential colony, and the petitioner had not given any evidence that may prove that said land is not near or adjacent to Green Village Residential colony, therefore it is found that within 200 meters of said land residential activities are being carried out, which were not mentioned in said instrument of sale-deed. On the basis of this finding, the respondent No. 3 ADM had accepted the report of Assistant Collector (Stamp) and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp fees of Rs. 7,84,660/- from the date of its execution dated 3.9.2011 alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per mensem. 5. Aggrieved by said judgment dated 27.2.2015, the petitioner had preferred Stamp Revision No. 4/2014-15 (Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P.), under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act. In said judgment revisional Court had held that by order dated 8.11.2011, the District Maigstrate/Collector, Meerut had issued new circle rates, in which it was mentioned that if property being used for agricultural purposes is situated within 200 meters of area where residential activities are being carried out, so for the purposes of stamp-duty 20% stamp-duty will be enhanced on agricultural circle rate. Said revisional Court had held that in this matter revisionist (present petitioner Ashwani Kumar) had not adduced any fact, which may prove that disputed property is not within 200 meters of residential colony, therefore, it cannot be accepted that such land is not within 200 meters of area of residential activities and it cannot be used for residential purposes or it will not be acquired for purposes of road. On the basis of such findings, the revisional Court had confirmed the finding of respondent No. 3 and dismissed the revision by its judgment dated 10.9.2015. 6. On the basis of such findings, the revisional Court had confirmed the finding of respondent No. 3 and dismissed the revision by its judgment dated 10.9.2015. 6. Against these judgments of respondent No. 3 dated 27.2.2015 and respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the petitioner had preferred present writ petition for quashing the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that property in question purchased through said registered sale-deed dated 3.9.2011 contained description of agricultural land. Said land is recorded in concerned Khasra and Khatauni (revenue records of possession and of title) as agricultural land. He pointed out that those revenue records, in which it is mentioned that land purchased by Ashwani Kumar son of Kailash Chandra Verma (petitioner) is cultivated with rice in Kharif season, with wheat and vegetables during Rabi season and with fodder barley (Makka) and Kheera in Zayad season, and it contains a tube-well. He submitted that these revenue records are proof of the fact that the property in question purchased as agricultural land was being used even after purchase and after mutation of name of petitioner exclusively for agricultural purposes. He further submitted that there is no evidence at all to prove that said property is situated near or adjacent to any residential area, and the burden of proving this fact was on respondents, who had failed to discharge it; but without any sufficient reason, impugned order was passed by respondent No. 3. He further submitted that even revisional Court had not considered these facts that burden of proof was on respondents and not on petitioner, but it had passed erroneous judgment dated 10.9.2015 in revision, by which said revision was dismissed without appreciating relevant facts, therefore, writ petition should be allowed. 8. These submissions were refuted by standing counsel, who submitted that respondent No. 3 Collector (Stamp) had passed impugned order dated 27.2.2015 on the basis of report received after spot inspection. Said report was received without any error or ill will and there is no reason to discard such report. The impugned judgments had been passed following the rules and law without any error, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. 9. From perusal of record, it is found that sale-deed in question dated 3.9.2011 contains recital of sale of agricultural land for future agricultural purposes. The impugned judgments had been passed following the rules and law without any error, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. 9. From perusal of record, it is found that sale-deed in question dated 3.9.2011 contains recital of sale of agricultural land for future agricultural purposes. The description of property shows that it has one private tube-well for irrigating said agricultural land and no residential or other activity is carried out within 200 meters from said land, and stamp fees is being paid in accordance with circle rate prescribed by respondents. After execution of sale-deed, the name of petitioner Ashwani Kumar was mutated over said land by him. The certified copy of revenue records (Khasra and Khatauni) are available before this Court, which is not denied by respondent side. These revenue records proved that after purchase of said land, it is being used for agricultural purposes and during all the three agricultural season of Kharif, Rabi and Zayad, only agricultural activities relating to crops is carried out over it. Even sufficient time after execution of sale-deed and except tube-well there is no construction over it. Thus, there is no doubt that disputed property was agricultural land, which was purchased by petitioner for agricultural purposes and has been used for same by him. 10. Respondent No. 3 in his judgment dated 27.2.2015 and respondent No. 2 in his judgment dated 19.9.2015 had held that since petitioner had failed to prove that disputed property is not within 200 meters area and land of residential activities, therefore, it will be treated as land adjacent to residential area and the stamp-duty should be levied as such land. These findings are not only erroneous, but are perverse. When the petitioner had specifically mentioned the location of property specifying that it is not situated within area carrying residential activities, as mentioned in sale-deed in question, and when there is no such evidence that such property is situated near any residential area, then there is no justification for respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 2 to discard such averment without assigning any proper reason. Apart from it, burden of proving the fact that disputed property situated nearby such residential area was on the person, who desired it to be believed. 11. Section 101 and 103 of Indian Evidence Act read as under: “101. Apart from it, burden of proving the fact that disputed property situated nearby such residential area was on the person, who desired it to be believed. 11. Section 101 and 103 of Indian Evidence Act read as under: “101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” “103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 12. In present case it was respondents who desired to make believe that the disputed property is situated in a particular area (near residential area). The petitioner had denied the existence of that property is in such area. Therefore the burden of proof is of proving said fact was on the respondents, who had not given any reason in support of their finding. This observation of respondent, through their impugned orders, was totally perverse and unacceptable that the petitioner had failed to prove that said property is not in that particular area which is mentioned by respondents in their notice. 13. There is no denial of the fact that disputed property had been and is being used for agricultural purposes, which is evident from entries of revenue records, prepared after mutation of the name of petitioner. The respondent No. 3 had held that petitioner had not given any evidence to prove that said property is not situated near residential area. But this plea is against the settled legal norms. If the respondent No. 3 willing to hold the location of property near residential area, then they should have proved it specifically and respondent Nos. 2 or 3 should have held it specifically. 14. In such case, the burden of proof was on respondents to show or prove that said property is near residential area. But without discharging their burden of proof and without any such specific finding, the impugned order of assessment was passed, which is apparently erroneous. 15. 2 or 3 should have held it specifically. 14. In such case, the burden of proof was on respondents to show or prove that said property is near residential area. But without discharging their burden of proof and without any such specific finding, the impugned order of assessment was passed, which is apparently erroneous. 15. Respondent No. 2 Commissioner had confirmed the finding of respondent No. 3 without considering these facts and without specifically, holding that disputed property is situated near the residential area. His finding is without appreciation of evidences and facts and appears to have been given without application of judicial mind. He had not exercised jurisdiction vested in him and what he did wa improper exercise of jurisdiction. 16. This is also apparent from the admitted fact that in his judgment dated 10.9.2015, respondent No. 2 Commissioner had relied on the new circle rate issued by order dated 8.11.2011 of District Magistrate. This new circle rate was issued/declared after the execution of sale-deed in question dated 3.9.2011, in which it was directed that the stamp-duty for agricultural land situated within 200 meters from area having residential activities will be levied 20% additional stamp-duty. Respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 both had relied in their judgment on this circle rate applicable after execution of sale-deed on 8.11.2011, but had erroneously, apparently without application of mind, had implemented it for the sale-deed executed earlier to it. 17. In Rajesh Pandey v. State of U.P., (2011) 4 All LJ 433, the Appex Court had held as under: “20. It is also well recognized that the relevant date for determining the market value of the property is the date of the sale and that stamp-duty is to be charged on the market value of the land depending upon its use to which it was put at the time of the sale and not on future potentiality. 21. It may also be worthy to note that though size and location of the property are important factors in determining the market value but nonetheless mere location or size is not sufficient e.g. the land use of an agricultural land in the urban area or of residential land in the commercial area would not ipso facto change unless it is proved that its nature has undergone a change. 22. 22. Market value has to be determined on the basis of the constructive material produced before the authorities which is completely lacking in the present case.” 18. In Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector, (1999) 5 SCC 62 , the Appex Court has held as under: “5. The object of the Indian Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp-duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such duty is payable. This is to protect the State revenue. It is a matter of common knowledge that in order to escape such duty by unfair practice, many a time undervaluation of a property or lower consideration is mentioned in a sale-deed. The imposition of stamp-duty on sale-deeds is on the actual market value of such property and not the value described in the instrument. Thus, an obligation is cast on the authority to properly ascertain its true value for which he is not bound by the apparent tenor of the instrument. He has to truly decide the real nature of the transaction and value of such property. For this, the Act empowers an authority to charge stamp-duty on the instrument presented before it for registration.” 19. It is not denied that stamp-duty by petitioner was paid on circle rate applicable for the agricultural land purchased by him. It is apparent from perusal of record that proper stamp-duty was paid on sale-deed in question at the time of its execution. There has been no evidence to show that any error or irregularity has been committed in this matter on behalf of respondents or any concealment of fact was made by him, but the impugned orders firstly by respondent No. 3 and thereafter by respondent No. 2 were passed on the basis of unfounded speculation, hypothesis and by illegalities committed by them, when they have shifted their burden of proof on petitioner at the time of passing impugned erroneous orders. Therefore, impugned order dated 27.2.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 in Stamp Case No. V-03/2013D2013115200746 and the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 Collector, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 4/2014-15 (Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. Therefore, impugned order dated 27.2.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 in Stamp Case No. V-03/2013D2013115200746 and the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 Collector, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 4/2014-15 (Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. The amount, if any, deposited by petitioner after passing of the impugned orders shall be refunded to him immediately with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposition of said amount.