JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Via Video Conferencing) This writ petition is arising out of a Stamp Case No. 52/6 of 2015-16, State Vs. Supertech Ltd. Company, which was instituted by the State/petitioners, by drawing the proceedings against the respondents under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The genuineness of drawing of those proceedings, was on the basis of the report, as was submitted by the Sub Registrar, Rudrapur, on 22.01.2016, holding thereof that the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the respondents by seller Mr. Dinesh Agarwal S/o late Shri Ram Avtar of the land lying in khet No. 471 ka having an area of 0.8090 hectares, was deficiently stamped and the said determination was made under Section 47A, on the basis of report dated 22.01.2016, on the ground that since the sale consideration of the said sale deed was totalling to Rs. 1,37,53,000/-, the report observed that the stamp, which was paid on the said document of Rs. 8,00,000/- was deficiently stamped and it ought to be valued in accordance with the Govt. Order No. 288/XVIII(II)/2015-I(29)/2013 T.C. dated 07.08.2015 and in accordance with the District Magistrate's letter No. 103/XXVII(9)/2014 STAMP 31/2009 dated 06.06.2014. 2. In fact, as per the said Govt. Order dated 07.08.2015, as well as the letter of District Magistrate dated 06.06.2014, it contemplated that the stamp duty, which was to be levied on the instruments, thus executed, ought to be paid on the basis of the circle rate and accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Revenue, District Udham Singh Nagar, while deciding the aforesaid case, had held that the sale deed, as executed in favour of the petitioners was deficiently stamped to the tune of Rs. 1,46,12,475/- in total, inclusive of deficiency of stamp and penalty which was levied on it, along with interest. 3. Aggrieved against the said judgement, the respondents had preferred a Revision being Revision No. 5 of 2017-18, M/s Supertech Ltd. Company Vs. State and Another, by invoking provisions contained under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Revision, thus preferred by the respondents was allowed by the impugned judgement dated 22.06.2019. The basis of allowing the Revision, which was preferred by the respondents, was on the ground that the propriety of the said Govt. State and Another, by invoking provisions contained under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Revision, thus preferred by the respondents was allowed by the impugned judgement dated 22.06.2019. The basis of allowing the Revision, which was preferred by the respondents, was on the ground that the propriety of the said Govt. Order No. 103/XXVII(9)/2014 stamp-31/2009 dated 06.06.2014 and other corresponding directions issued by the Revenue Authorities, had been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 366 of 2015, M/s Graphic Era Educational Society Vs. State of Uttarakhand, vide judgement dated 31.08.2015. Subsequently, a challenge was given to said judgement dated 31.08.2015, the same has been later also affirmed by the Division Bench, with the dismissal of Special Appeal No. 634 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Graphic Era Educational Society, by the judgement dated 18.06.2016. The fact of above proceedings, as decided by the Writ Court and in Special Appeal, quashing the Government Order is admitted by the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, since the said principle and the very foundation of levying the deficiency of the stamp on the respondents, on the instrument, which was executed in their favour, determining it to be payable on the basis of the prevalent circle rate would be bad, because the very guidelines as formulated by the Govt. Order dated 06.06.2014, since had already been laid to rest by its quashing vide the judgement dated 31.08.2015, the very basis of the impugned revisional order, passed by the ADM, Finance was without competence and contrary to the ratio disendi by this Court. 5. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court has rightly held that the parameters, adopted by the respondents for determining the deficiency of the stamp runs contrary to the decision already rendered by the Court and accordingly, the Revision was allowed. 6. 5. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court has rightly held that the parameters, adopted by the respondents for determining the deficiency of the stamp runs contrary to the decision already rendered by the Court and accordingly, the Revision was allowed. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Revisional Court has rightly observed in its judgement dated 22.06.2019, which reads as under:- ^^;|fi ;g fcUnq fd ^^D;k vkyksP; izdj.k esa LVkEi dysDVj ds foØ;kUrxZr Hkwfe ds ewY;kadu ,oa ml ij vfrfjDr LVkEi 'kqYd ns;rk fu/kkZj.k ds mijkUr izLrqr foØ; foys[k ds fucU/ku ls iwoZ vFkn.M vkjksfir gks ldrk Fkk** ds lEcU/k esa mHk;i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ rdZ@dFku ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ijUrq LVkEi dysDVj }kjk fucU/ku ls iwoZ fu/kkZfjr ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj LVkEi 'kqYd Hkqxrku fu;r vof/k esa fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vFkZn.M dk Á'u ugha mBuk pkfg,A ;g fu"d"kZ ek= vdknfed (Academic) vFkkZr obiter dicta gS ,oa bls fu'p;kRed vFkkZr ratio decidendi ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA** 7. In the said judgement of the Revisional Court dated 22.06.2019, wherein it has been observed that, it becomes an obiter dicta and a ratio desendi on the basis of the judgement which already stood rendered by the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by the Division Bench and consequently the imposition of the deficiency of stamp, as made by the ADM, Finance was contrary to the ratio, already propounded by the Court, hence I do not find any error in the Revisional Court's judgement dated 22.06.2019, allowing of the Revision of the respondents, Consequently, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. No other argument was extended by the petitioners' counsel.