JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has purchased agricultural plot No.26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor situated at village-fautapar, Tappa-Haveli, District-Basi through registered sale-deed executed on 23.03.1995 for Rs.47,200/- The stamp of Rs.15370/- has been paid on the value of Rs.1,06,000/-. Proceeding under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp was initiated in respect of petitioner's aforementioned sale deed which was registered as Stamp Case No.899/301/1994 under Section 47A Stamp Act State Vs. Manorama. A report was called for in the case accordingly Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 06.11.1995 before Collector in Stamp Case No.899/301/1994 mentioning that disputed sold plot is agricultural property and no building is situated in the disputed plot, the disputed plot is not of residential/commercial importance. The user of land has not been changed and there is no declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect of disputed plot No.26. Petitioner appeared in the aforementioned case after notice and Additional Collector heard the matter. The additional collector without considering the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 and without making the spot inspection himself fixed the rate of Rs.1000/- per square meter accordingly Stamp duty of Rs.97,585 was fixed hence deficiency of Rs.82,215 and penalty of Rs.82,215 was imposed vide his order dated 29.01.1996. Petitioner challenged the order passed by additional collector dated 29.01.1996 through revision before Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling revenue authority taking specific ground in the ground of revision that land in dispute is agricultural land and surrounded by agricultural land on all sides but Board of Revenue in arbitrary manner allowed the revision party setting aside the order imposing penalty only but the order of deficiency of stamp duty was maintained, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner. 3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the following interim order dated 13.02.2002 : "The learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2. He prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Subject to petitioner giving security of the equal amount of deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs.82,215/- to the satisfaction of respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain stayed." 4. He prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Subject to petitioner giving security of the equal amount of deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs.82,215/- to the satisfaction of respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain stayed." 4. In spite of the interim order dated 13.02.2002 passed by this Court no counter affidavit has been filed by Standing Counsel on behalf of State denying the averment made in the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has been arbitrarily initiated against the petitioners. He further submitted that Naib Tehsildar has submitted his report dated 06.11.1995 that disputed plot is an agricultural plot and building is not situated over the disputed plot but Additional Collector without considering the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 has ordered for payment of stamp duty and penalty without any evidence on record to that effect. he further submitted that revisional court although set aside the order of imposition of penalty but on the ground of probability maintained the order of payment of stamp duty. He further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was also not afforded by revisional Court. He further submitted that no declaration has been made under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect to disputed plot No 26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 2021 (152) RD 141 Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which this Court has held that valuation has to be done on the date of execution of the sale deed and not on the grounds of its potential use subsequently for a different purpose. State of U.P. and others, in which this Court has held that valuation has to be done on the date of execution of the sale deed and not on the grounds of its potential use subsequently for a different purpose. Paragraph No.8 of the judgment has been relied upon which is as follows : On the basis of the submissions made, the short question that arises are as to whether levy of stamp duty can be justified on the basis of land not being used for the purposes for which it was purchased and whether stamp duty can be levied on the ground that in the vicinity, lands are being used for residential purposes, the above two referred judgments give a clear answer to the questions raised in the present writ petition. These aspects have been duly considered by this Court. Even otherwise in the Rules provided for valuation of the property, it is clear that the valuation has to be done on the date of execution of the sale deed and not on the grounds of its potential use subsequently for a different purpose. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the land was not agricultural property referred in the revenue records. There is further nothing on record to demonstrate that the land in question was declared fit for residential use under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. That being the case, it is a simple case of improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the A.D.M. and an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Revisional Court. 7. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submitted that revisional court has partly allowed the revision of petitioner setting aside the order of imposition of penalty against the petitioner and the order of imposition of stamp duty has been rightly affirmed by revisional court on the ground of future potential of the land in dispute although learned stand Counsel failed to satisfy the quarry of the court that if revenue record, sale deed and the report of Naib-Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 fully demonstrate that plot in dispute is an agricultural land on the date of execution of sale deed dated 23.03.1995 then under what circumstances the rate of residential plot can be imposed for fixation of stamp duty against the petitioner. 8. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that disputed plot No.26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor was recorded as agricultural plot in the revenue record on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 23.03.1995 in favour of petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that Naib Tehsildar has submitted his report dated 06.11.1995 in Case under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act that plot in dispute is an agricultural plot and no building is situated over the same. Additional Collector ordered to deficient stamp duty as well as penalty against the petitioner without considering the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 and revisional court although set aside the order of imposition of penalty against the petitioner but affirmed the order of payment of stamp duty on the ground of future potential of the land. 10. Since the plot in dispute was recorded as agricultural plot in the revenue record on the date of execution of sale deed coupled with the fact that report of Naib Tehsildar submitted on 06.11.1995 that is after about more than 7 months from the date of execution of sale deed the plot in dispute was found to be agricultural land in all respect as such the imposition of residential/ abadi rate for determining the valuation of land on the ground of future potential of the land in dispute is illegal. 11. Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition is relevant for perusal which are as under : "6. That Naib Tehsildar has reported the following things land in question is agricultural land and is surrounded by agricultural land user and purpose is also agriculture. Land situate 500 meter away from Block road and situate at Siwan, Not use full for Abadi purposes. Nature of the land is 'Doras-4' valuation also fixed and found to be Rs.50,880/- 7. That it is pertinent to mention here that apart of inspection report dated 06.11.1995 (Annexure 2) there is no other report nor Presiding Officer ever visited the spot or gave its own valuation report. Nor there is any report by the Collector/Presiding Officer on record. 8. That it is also very much pertinent to state that nature of the land and it/s user has also not been changed till today. Nor there is any report by the Collector/Presiding Officer on record. 8. That it is also very much pertinent to state that nature of the land and it/s user has also not been changed till today. As is required under Section 43 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for the use of land other than the agricultural purposes. it is further stated that land in question is still being used as agricultural purposes." 12. State has not controverted the allegation made in the above mentioned paragraph by filing counter affidavit in spite of expiry of 20 years as such the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition is deemed to be correct. 13. The full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2015 (127) RD 855 Smt. Pushpa Sarin Vs. State of U.P. has held as under in paragraph Nos. 27, 28 and 29:- "27. 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. 28. 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. 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. 29. 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 vs. Ambrish Tandon and another. This is because the nature of the user is relatable 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" 14. 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" 14. In the present case except the Naib Tehsildar report dated 06.11.1995, revenue record and the sale deed in question there was no evidence on record to hold that land in dispute is not an agricultural land as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law in which on the point of future potential of the land without any basis the stamp duty paid by the petitioner was found deficient. 15. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Chotey Lal (Supra) is also applicable in the present controversy in which the full bench decision rendered in Smt. Pushpa Sarin (Supra) has been also considered. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio law laid down in Smt. Pushpa Sarin(supra) and Chhotey Lal (Supra) the impugned order dated 29.01.1996 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue Allahabad cannot be sustained in the eye of law as such the same are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.