JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order of the CCRA dated 28.07.2011 in Revision No. 126 of 2008-09 (Bhagyodaya Charitable Society Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the revising authority has refused to interfere in the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Stamp Case No. 180 of 2009 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Thus, deficiency of stamp duty Rs. 4,24,500/-determined vide order dated 09.06.2008 and equal amount of penalty imposed together with interest liability on the subject sale deed dated 30.07.2005, has been affirmed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, against the subject sale deed dated 30.07.2005, the petitioner purchased plot no. 907 ad measuring 0.338 hectares of land at Bairi Akbarpur Kachhar, Kanpur Nagar as disclosed in the sale deed. To that, there is no dispute that the land purchased is not adjoining any National or State Highway etc. The sale deed was valued at Rs. 6,68,159/-and stamp duty calculated and paid thereon treating the same to be agricultural land. Almost two years after execution of the sale deed, reference has been made under Section 47-A of the Act, alleging stamp deficiency of Rs. 4,24,500/-. As a result of adjudication made, the land purchased by the petitioner through subject sale deed was held to be residential land. Accordingly, the deed was valued on circle rate of residential land at Rs. 50,70,000/-. Accordingly, stamp deficiency was computed and penalty imposed. 4. In the first place, the reference arose two years after the execution of the sale deed and then, during the adjudication proceedings, further delay was caused. Thus, the Tehsildar report on the basis of which deficiency has been determined is dated 03.03.2008. Copy of the same has been appended to the writ petition. Perusal of the same reveals, the constructed building was found over ten biswa land while the remaining land had been filled with "Rabish" etc. to raise its level. Further, it was reported that at the time of survey there was no agricultural activity being conducted. Copy of the same has been appended to the writ petition. Perusal of the same reveals, the constructed building was found over ten biswa land while the remaining land had been filled with "Rabish" etc. to raise its level. Further, it was reported that at the time of survey there was no agricultural activity being conducted. In the same report, the Tehsildar recorded, he had been informed by the villagers that at the time of purchase made by the petitioner, the land was used for agricultural purposes. 5. No other material was brought on record by the revenue authorities to support their assertion that the land was residential. 6. Reliance placed by the stamp authority and the revising authority on the permission obtained by the vendor, from the Housing Commissioner is of no consequence, as it is not the case of the revenue authorities that permission was granted for construction of houses etc. It is not the case of the revenue authorities that the petitioner is a housing society. 7. Again, the delay caused by the revenue authorities in making the reference and the further delay caused in making the spot inspection report cannot be lightly overlooked especially since no residential house was found existing even at that belated stage. Other than making mention of construction over ten biswa land, no mention has been made as to the nature of construction or the use of the building. 8. In fact, read in entirety the spot inspection report dated 03.03.2008 made by the Tehsildar itself indicates that solitary building was standing in the vicinity of the land in question. Then, the observation made by the Tehsildar himself that he was informed that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes at the time of purchase made by the petitioner could not be ignored, keeping in mind the fact but for the report there was no material to proceed against the petitioner. It would have been another case if some material had been existed in which case, the last observation made by the Tehsildar in his report dated 03.03.2008 may have stood diluted or may have lost its consequence. 9. Further, since the only adverse material is only the spot inspection report, the same has to be read in entirety. It would have been another case if some material had been existed in which case, the last observation made by the Tehsildar in his report dated 03.03.2008 may have stood diluted or may have lost its consequence. 9. Further, since the only adverse material is only the spot inspection report, the same has to be read in entirety. Plainly, it leaves enough doubt in the mind as may prevent any firm conclusion to arise that the land was for residential purpose and not for agricultural purpose. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The demand of deficient stamp duty and penalty is deleted. 11. Any amount that may have been deposited by the petitioner against the disputed demand may be returned within a period of one month.