JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Imran Syed, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition and the connected matters have been filed against identical orders. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 29.09.2011 whereby the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the Collector, Mathura in Stamp Case No. 86 of 2007-08. Thus, deficiency of stamp duty determined at Rs. 50,500/-and penalty Rs. 3,000/-has been confirmed. 3. The petitioner had executed the subject sale deed dated 18.06.2007 and purchased 0.248 hectare of agricultural land in Gata No. 257/2, 265 and 266 at Village -Jaint, Mathura for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,34,600/-. Against the circle rate (for agricultural land) prescribed at Rs. 6,00,000/-per acre, the petitioner valued the subject sale deed at Rs. 12,00,000/-per acre. Accordingly, stamp duty Rs. 73,500/-was paid. 4. Four months after execution of the subject sale deed, the petitioner was visited with a notice issued under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner responded to the notice thus -on the date of purchase and even on the date of reply furnished by it, the land in question was of agricultural use only. No declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 had yet been applied for. The allegation of land being of residential use was specifically denied and it was asserted, there was standing crop on the land. 5. In such circumstances, a spot inspection was carried out on 15.04.2009 and its report was submitted on 19.04.2009. In that, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura confirmed the objection set up by the petitioner of land being of agricultural use only. Further, the basis of the reference made being an exemplar agreement to sell, it was stated to be not comparable. 6. On objection of the revenue authorities, that report was not accepted and a further report was called. The second report dated 29.01.2010 was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Law & Order), Mathura. He referred to the subsequent revision of circle rate of agricultural land w.e.f. 01.09.2007, whereby the minimum rates prescribed for payment of stamp duty on agricultural land in Village -Jaint, was revised to Rs. 15,00,000/-per acre. The second report dated 29.01.2010 was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Law & Order), Mathura. He referred to the subsequent revision of circle rate of agricultural land w.e.f. 01.09.2007, whereby the minimum rates prescribed for payment of stamp duty on agricultural land in Village -Jaint, was revised to Rs. 15,00,000/-per acre. Reference was also made to an agreement to sell dated 05.05.2007 executed in favour of a corporate entity, for consideration of Rs. 53,70,370/-, for land ad measuring @ Rs. 1,800 per sq. mtr. 7. The objection raised by the petitioner to the applicability of the revised circle rates and the registered agreement to sell were rejected. Vide impugned order dated 16.09.2010, the Collector, Mathura determined total stamp duty payable on the subject deed at Rs. 1,24,000/-. Accordingly, he determined deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 50,500/-and imposed penalty Rs. 3,000/-. This order has been confirmed in revision. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the principle to be applied in such a case has been considered in a three -Judge Special Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 136 , wherein, amongst others, the following question was framed : "(2) Whether the Collector Stamps has power to fix the valuation of a plot on the assumption that the same is likely to be used for commercial purposes, and whether the presumed future prospective use of the land can be a criterion for valuation by the Collector;" 9. Answering the above question, the Special Bench made following pertinent observations : "20. Now insofar as the second question is concerned, the issue posed for consideration before the Court is whether the Collector has the power to fix the valuation of a plot on the assumption that it is likely to be used for commercial purposes and whether the presumed future prospective use of the land can be a criterion for valuation by the Collector. The Collector, while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 47-A, is required to determine the market value of the property on the date of the instrument. It is a well-settled principle of law that stamp duty is a levy which is imposed not on the transaction but on the instrument." 10. The Collector, while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 47-A, is required to determine the market value of the property on the date of the instrument. It is a well-settled principle of law that stamp duty is a levy which is imposed not on the transaction but on the instrument." 10. Further as to the value on the date of execution of the subject sale deed, the Special Bench expressed its opinion as below : "26. The true test for determination by the Collector is the market value of the property on the date of the instrument because, under the provisions of the Act, every instrument is required to be stamped before or at the time of execution. In making that determination, the Collector has to be mindful of the fact that the market value of the property may vary from location to location and is dependent upon a large number of circumstances having a bearing on the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the land as well as the use to which the land can be put on the date of the execution of the instrument. 27. Undoubtedly, the Collector is not permitted to launch upon a speculative inquiry about the prospective use to which a land may be put to use at an uncertain future date. The market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the use to which the land is capable reasonably of being put to immediately or in the proximate future. The possibility of the land becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use and enjoyment reflects upon the potentiality of the land. This potential has to be assessed with reference to the date of the execution of the instrument. In other words, the power of the Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out the potential to which the land can be advantageously deployed at the time of the execution of the instrument or a period reasonably proximate thereto. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor which influences the market value of the land. 28. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor which influences the market value of the land. 28. The fact that the land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of stamp duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Ambrish Tandon and another, (2012) 5 SCC 566 . This is because the nature of the user is relateable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the stamp duty. Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value. At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise. The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous sale-deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration. The Collector, therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser." 11. Thus, first, the value of the subject deed has to be determined on the basis of its current use on the date of execution of the deed. Second, in determining that value, the prospective use of the land may be taken into consideration. However, that prospective valuation must be with respect to proximate future in which the land may be reasonably put to use. Second, in determining that value, the prospective use of the land may be taken into consideration. However, that prospective valuation must be with respect to proximate future in which the land may be reasonably put to use. Third, if the land surrounding the property (that forms the subject matter of the deed), has been put to commercial use, that consideration may weigh in the matter of valuation. Fourth, by way of exception to the above (third), if the land was put to use (such as commercial), at a later point of time, that factor may lose its relevancy. Fifth, it was clarified, objective material must exist to infer change of use of the land or contemporaneous sale deeds of adjacent i.e. comparable land, before its value is determined. 12. Applying the above tests, to the present facts, it is seen, on the date of execution of the subject deed i.e. 18.06.2007 the land in question had been put to agricultural use only. Against the circle rate prescribed at Rs. 6,00,000/-per acre, the petitioner valued the subject sale deed at Rs. 12,00,000/-per acre. There is no finding recorded that the land purchased by the petitioner was surrounded by other land that had been put to commercial use, on that date. 13. Though petitioner may not be right in contending that the agreement to sell does not constitute an exemplar, since a registered agreement to sell is a visible & valuable evidence of market value of a land. The stamp duty paid thereon is to be adjusted against the stamp duty payable on the sale deed eventually executed. 14. At the same time, there is no finding recorded by any authority that the land that forms the subject matter of exemplar sale deed was adjoining the plot purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, simple one to one parity may never be drawn -of the plot purchased by the petitioner with the exemplar agreement to sell. Also, declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 had not been made, with respect to the land purchased by the petitioner, while such declaration did exist with respect to the other land. 15. Therefore, simple one to one parity may never be drawn -of the plot purchased by the petitioner with the exemplar agreement to sell. Also, declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 had not been made, with respect to the land purchased by the petitioner, while such declaration did exist with respect to the other land. 15. Coupled with the above, it may not be lost sight, even at the time of the spot inspection conducted in the year 2009 i.e. two years after the execution of the subject deed, the land giving rise to the exemplar deed, had not been put to residential or other use. The land purchased by the petitioner was continued to be used for agricultural purpose, at that time. 16. In that light, it is also relevant, five months after execution of the subject deed, circle rates were revised such that the value of agricultural land of the area was enhanced to Rs. 15,00,000/-per acre against disclosed rate of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 17. In view of the above, it does not appear to be a fit case for enhancement of valuation of the subject deed. It may not be forgotten these proceedings are in the nature of best judgement assessment. The real/true value of the land may not be determined at empirically correct market value of the land. It may remain an illusive concept to apply. It may never be possible for the authorities to determine the same with exactitude. 18. The provision is largely an exercise to prevent evasion of stamp duty and/or to ensure payment of correct stamp duty. Payment of correct stamp duty may not be equated with payment of exact stamp duty. A margin of error may always exist. So long as value declared appears to be a fair market value based on true facts, the same may not be disturbed, post-execution of the deed, except on objective basis. 19. In present facts, the valuation disclosed by the petitioner was fair being twice the circle rate value. There is no material found existing on record to value the same at Rs. 15,00,000/-per acre against the rate Rs. 12,00,000/-disclosed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The demand of deficient stamp duty and penalty is deleted. 20. There is no material found existing on record to value the same at Rs. 15,00,000/-per acre against the rate Rs. 12,00,000/-disclosed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The demand of deficient stamp duty and penalty is deleted. 20. Any amount that may have been deposited by the petitioner against the disputed demand may be returned within a period of one month.