JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 23rd August, 2002 passed under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899 as well as appellate order dated 12th June, 2003 passed in Appeal under Section 56 of the Act whereunder additional stamp duty along with penalty has been imposed upon petitioner primarily on the ground that he is in possession of excess area than is indicated over plot in question in the sale deed dated 25th June, 2002. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of instrument of transfer dated 25th June, 2002, he had purchased a portion of gata No. 438 situate in village Janora, Paragana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil and District Faizabad whereafter on the basis of an ex parte spot inspection conducted by Tehsildar dated 28th July, 2002, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated against petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner had filed his objections to the spot inspection report which however were not considered and the order has been passed by the assessing authority primarily on the spot inspection report on the ground that as per measurement of the property purchased, excess land is in possession of the petitioner than is indicated in the sale deed. The aforesaid finding has thereafter been affirmed by appellate authority under Section 56 of the Act without considering the aspect that stamp duty is leviable only on the area indicated in the instrument of transfer since petitioner would not derive any title or ownership over any property beyond the area indicated in the instrument. As such it is submitted that authorities fell in error in allowing reference under Section 47-A of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise the spot inspection report was ex parte and no prior notice thereto was ever provided to petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan Versus Raj Rajeshwari Devi reported in 1959 A.I.R. Allahabad 583 and Smt. Bindu Singh Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (26) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1158 to buttress his submissions. 4. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan Versus Raj Rajeshwari Devi reported in 1959 A.I.R. Allahabad 583 and Smt. Bindu Singh Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (26) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1158 to buttress his submissions. 4. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of the spot inspection report will reveal that measurement of the actual area purchased by the petitioner was done by Naib Tehsildar and the petitioner was found to be in possession of excess area that is indicated in the sale deed. It is submitted that there was major discrepancy in the area indicated in the sale deed and actual measurement of the area purchased by the petitioner. 5. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that proceedings under section 47-A of the Act were initiated on the basis of spot inspection report which indicated excess area of the property at the time of measurement in the spot inspection than is indicated in the sale deed. It is on that basis that order under section 47-A has also been passed as also on the basis of objection filed by petitioner that he would demolish the existing shops and would execute a sale deed with regard to remaining area of the property purchased. The same reasoning has been adopted by appellate authority in proceedings under Section 56 of the Act. 6. Upon perusal of aforesaid orders, it is apparent that they are based on the spot inspection report dated 28th July, 2002 indicating petitioner to be in possession of over excess area than is indicated in the instrument of transfer. It is quite apparent that petitioner would not derive title or ownership over area which is not included in the sale deed. At best it can be safely inferred that petitioner may be a trespasser or in illegal occupation over area which is in excess of the sale deed but the Act does not provide for imposition of stamp duty as per actual possession over the property sought to be purchased but is instead leviable only on the area indicated in the instrument of transfer. 7. 7. Aforesaid view is also buttressed by the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan and Smt. Bindu Singh(supra) as well as by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Madras Refineries Ltd. Versus The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of revenue, Madras reported in (1977) 2 SCC 308 in which it has been clearly held that stamp duty is leviable only in accordance with contents of the instrument of transfer to the following effect:- Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan (supra) "4. The stamp duty on any instrument is to be determined with reference to the terms of the instrument. In Gatty v. Fry, (1877) 2 Ex D 265, the question was whether a post dated cheque payable to bearer and stamped as a bill of exchange payable on demand was admissible in evidence after the date of the cheque. Cleasby, B., delivering the judgment of the Court said : "The question therefore is whether, if upon the face of the instrument the stamp is sufficient, as was the case here, since the cheque, at the time of the trial, was payable on demand, it cannot be used in evidence, because, in fact, when it was given, being post dated, it was not then payable. We think this case is concluded by authority, and that in considering whether the stamp is sufficient we must look at the instrument itself alone. The authorities are Williams v. Jarett, (1833) 5-B and Ad 32; Whistler v. Forester, (1863) 14 CB (N. S.) 248; Austin v. Bunyard, (1865) 6 B and Section 687, .....What the Act requires is that a particular instrument which means the paper with certain things written upon it, shall have a particular stamp applicable to that instrument, not to that instrument coupled with other circumstances." (1877) 2 Ex D 265 was approved by the Court of Appeal in Royal Bank or Scotland v. Tottenham, (1894) 2 QB 715, and the law so laid down has been consistently followed in India : See Ramen Chetty v. Mahomed Ghouse, ILR 16 Cal 432; Sakharam Shankar v. Ramchandra Babu, ILR 27 Bom 279; In re C R. M. M. L. A. Chettiar Firm, ILR 13 Rang 613 : (AIR 1935 Rang 243) (SB). Smt. Bindu Singh (supra) Under law, the stamp duty is leviable only for value of the portion for which the deed is executed. If any additional area is occupied, legally or illegally by the petitioner, the concerned authority or person may take appropriate action for getting back possession of such portion which has not been purchased by the petitioner. However, the stamp duty on such portion, which has not been purchased by the petitioner. However, the stamp duty on such portion, which has not been purchased by the petitioner through the sale deed, can not be levied. The petitioner, having paid the stamp duty on the sale deed for the area which had been purchased by him, cannot now be subjected to additional stamp duty for any such area which has neither been purchased by him nor any deed having been executed for such area in his favour. As such the orders passed by the authorities below imposing additional stamp duty, penalty and interest on the petitioner for allegedly making illegal constructions beyond the area of land purchased by him, deserves to be quashed." Madras Refineries Ltd. (supra) "5. In Limmer Asphalte Paving Co. v. IRC [(1872) LR 7 Exch. 211] it was stated: "In order to determine whether any, and if any, what stamp duty is chargeable upon an instrument the legal rule is that the real and true meaning of the instrument is to be ascertained; that the description of it given in the instrument itself by the parties is immaterial, even although they may have believed that its effect and operation was to create a security mentioned in the Stamp Act, and they so declared." xxxx xxx xxxx 11. ........It is the real and true meaning of the Deed of Trust and Mortgage and the Guarantee Agreement which has to be ascertained, and this leaves no room for doubt that the view taken by the High Court in this respect is correct and does not call for interference. Mr Ram Reddy relied on some decisions to support his argument that the guarantee Agreement was the security for the loan and was the principal or the primary document, but these cases were decided on different facts and have no real bearing on the controversy before us." 8. Mr Ram Reddy relied on some decisions to support his argument that the guarantee Agreement was the security for the loan and was the principal or the primary document, but these cases were decided on different facts and have no real bearing on the controversy before us." 8. In view of the fact that impugned orders dated 23rd August, 2002 passed by opposite party No.2 as well as appellate order dated 12th June, 2003 passed by opposite party No.1 are not in consonance with judgments pronounced by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, are being erroneous are therefore set aside. 9. Consequently the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to impugned orders, the petitioner has already deposited certain amount with the authorities. Liberty is granted to petitioner to claim refund of the aforesaid amount which shall be refunded within a period of three months from the date an application along with a copy of this order is submitted before the concerned authority along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of deposit till date of actual payment.