JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Triveni Shankar, assisted by Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Addditional Chief Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 2. Present writ petition has been filed to assail the order dated 8.9.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh in Case No.00210 of 2020 (M/s Surendra Varenyam vs. State of U.P.). That appeal filed under Section 56(1A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed. Thus, the order passed under Section 47A of 'the Act' dated 6.3.2020 passed by Additional District Judge (Finance and Revenue), Etah has been affirmed. 3. By the subject deed dated 7.12.2018 the petitioner purchased 0.647 hectares and 0.040 hectares in Plot No.1058 ad measuring 0.405 hectare and half share of Plot No.1058 (Sa) ad measuring 0.680 hectares. The petitioner valued the deed at Rs.16,25,000/-and paid stamp duty of Rs.1,20,000/-. 4. Upon a complaint, the matter was referred for valuation of the deed and computation of stamp duty. In those proceedings it was found that the total area of Plot No.1058 was 0.405 hectares and that plot no.1058 (Sa) was 0.680 hectares. Also there pre-existed a declaration made under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. And L.R. Act, 1950 dated 12.5.2011 with respect to the aforesaid two plots declaring them of non agricultural use. In the course of those proceedings, spot inspection was carried out wherein it was noted that over a large portion of the aforesaid plot, a boundary wall had been constructed. At the same time, it was a case of both parties that the land falling inside the boundary wall did not belong to the petitioner. Other than a small portion of land thus bounded, no agricultural activity was found undertaken. The revenue records for 1425 fasli also did not indicate any agricultural activity carried out over the land. Thus the revenue authorities treated the land to be non agricultural. They valued it @ Rs.9000/-per sq. mt. leading to total valuation of the land at Rs.3,24,00,000/-and computed stamp duty thereon Rs.1,22,68,000/-. Accordingly, deficiency of stamp duty was determined at Rs.21,48,000/-. Further penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-was imposed. That order has been affirmed in appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is a common case between the parties that the share of the petitioner remain undemarketed. Accordingly, deficiency of stamp duty was determined at Rs.21,48,000/-. Further penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-was imposed. That order has been affirmed in appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is a common case between the parties that the share of the petitioner remain undemarketed. At the same time, it was also a common case between the parties that the petitioner did not purchase any portion of the land that falls within the bounded area noted in the time of spot inspection. What therefore remains to be seen is that whether there was any evidence of any portion of the land having been used for agricultural purpose. Though the petitioner claimed that the land purchased by it was for agricultural use, there does not exist any evidence on record to establish that the land purchased had actually been used for agricultural purpose. On the other hand, it is true that the petitioner admits the fact of the land adjoining the Grand Trunk Road and it is indisputable that a declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 was made on 12.5.2011, declaring the entire land comprising of Plot No.1058 and 1058 (Sa) to be non-agricultural. 6. In that view of the matter, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the second proviso to Section 80 Subsection 2 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would be of no avail. As a fact, it cannot be denied that a declaration was obtained with respect to the land in question that was part of the total land declared to be of non agricultural use. Merely because the time period of five years may have passed, during which period that land may not have been used for non-agricultural purpose may have certain consequences under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 including grant of deemed permission to conduct agricultural activity over the said land. At the same time, for the purposes of valuation of the land, it may remain to be seen if ever the land reverted to such agricultural use. 7. Here, the case of the petitioner falls short. No claim was made and no evidence was led to establish conduct of agricultural activity over the land in question. The land was lying vacant i.e. it was not being used for agricultural purpose. 7. Here, the case of the petitioner falls short. No claim was made and no evidence was led to establish conduct of agricultural activity over the land in question. The land was lying vacant i.e. it was not being used for agricultural purpose. The fact that Crusher Unit has been established on the part of the total land may not be decisive of the issue, but it was indicative. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said crusher had been established for a period of two years only. Be that as it may, that was the only activity found being conducted over the land in question. 9. No other dispute was raised in the proceeding before the Stamp Collector or in appeal to dispute the correct value of land at non-agricultural rate. Therefore, in such facts, it appears that the authorities have not erred in valuing the land as non agricultural @ Rs.9000/- per sq. mt. 10. In so far as the penalty is concerned it does appear that the same was not warranted, as the matter obtained on a complaint and no direct evidence was lead of any suppression or material concealment. It was a case of bonafide dispute raised. Merely, because the explanation furnished by the petitioner may have been dis-believed, it may not give rise to automatic levy of penalty. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent the impost of penalty Rs.2,00,000/-is deleted. As far the balance amount of deficient stamp duty is concerned, the same may be paid within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this order, in accordance with law.