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 12.10.2012 passed under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) as well as order dated 16.03.2015 passed under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. A further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties not to adopt any coercive measure against petitioner in respect of recovery citation dated 29.12.2012 has also been sought. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in question is a part of Gata No.88 having an area of 0.731 hectare situate in the Village concerned which was purchased by one Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi by means of registered sale deed dated 03.01.2005. Since the said property was being utilised for agricultural purposes, the purchaser filed an application dated 09.06.2005 for declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The said application was allowed by means of order dated 28.11.2005 but subsequently another application was filed by the said person under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pertaining to a portion of aforesaid property for declaration as agricultural. The said application was also allowed on 26.05.2011 whereafter the petitioner-institution purchased a portion of the said Gata No.88 measuring area of 0.522 hectare by means of instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011. Upon presentation of the said document for registration, spot inspection was made and reference was initiated under Section 47A(3) after its registration and by means of order impugned under Section 47A of the Act of 1899, additional stamp duty and penalty has been imposed upon petitioner-institution. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed primarily on the ground that a College stands established over the purchased property and as such it cannot be deemed to be agricultural in nature. It is further submitted that additional stamp duty has also been imposed treating the property to be non-agricultural and imposing stamp duty as per the situation of the property abutting a road although additional stamp duty on the instrument has been paid as per actual situation of the property away from the road. It is further submitted that additional stamp duty has also been imposed treating the property to be non-agricultural and imposing stamp duty as per the situation of the property abutting a road although additional stamp duty on the instrument has been paid as per actual situation of the property away from the road. It is submitted that the authorities fell in error in not considering the fact that College is not established over the entire 0.522 hectare and even as per the spot inspection report, is situated only over 0.209 hectare while rest of the property is being utilised for agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that even the spot inspection report is in violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). 5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that spot inspection report clearly indicates the fact that College stands established over the property purchased by means of the instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011 and also indicates that no agricultural activity is being undertaken thereupon. It is thus submitted that there is no error in the order particularly when the order also notices the fact that the property in question was converted to non-agricultural barely a month before the execution of the instrument of transfer. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from record that the property in question earlier was declared to be non-agricultural under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by means of order dated 28.11.2005 but a portion thereof, i.e. 0.522 hectare was thereafter declared to be agricultural with application under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act being allowed on 26.05.2011. The instrument of transfer with regard to said property was thereafter executed on 25.06.2011. 7. A perusal of the spot inspection report dated 11.07.2011 indicates that out of total area of 0.522 hectare purchased by petitioner-institution by means of instrument of transfer, the College building stands established on 0.209 hectare on which orders under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were passed on 26.05.2011. The report also indicates that no agricultural activity is ongoing on the said plot. 8. The report also indicates that no agricultural activity is ongoing on the said plot. 8. It is also evident that order under Sections 47-A of the Act of 1899 has been passed primarily on the ground that a college building stands established over the property in question and no agricultural activity could be seen on the property at the time of spot inspection. Suspicion has also been cast by the impugned order pertaining to fact that non-agricultural property was changed into agricultural just a month before the execution of instrument of transfer. The same reasoning has been followed by the appellate court while passing orders under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. 9. So far as the question with regard to following of the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 is concerned, this Court in Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 has clearly held the same to be mandatory in nature. In the present case, however although it appears that no prior notice was provided to petitioner-institution but it is also evident from the record that spot inspection report so far as it attributes the building having been constructed over a portion of purchased property is admitted by the petitioner itself, particularly with regard to area of construction. Since the petitioner has already admitted the factual situation with regard to construction of building, in the considered opinion of this Court, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-institution for non-compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. Although the aforesaid rule is mandatory in nature but if the spot inspection report is not being disputed by the assessee, no prejudice would be caused to him and, therefore, the orders of assessment of stamp duty cannot be vitiated only on that ground. 10. In the present case, it is seen from the record and is admitted by petitioner that out of entire Gata No.88 having area of 0.731 hectare, the instrument of transfer in question pertained only to 0.522 hectare on which the College building is constructed over a portion of 0.209 hectare. 10. In the present case, it is seen from the record and is admitted by petitioner that out of entire Gata No.88 having area of 0.731 hectare, the instrument of transfer in question pertained only to 0.522 hectare on which the College building is constructed over a portion of 0.209 hectare. Although learned counsel for petitioner submits that the building is constructed only over a portion of the property while the rest is under use as agricultural, no provision under the Act could be indicated whereunder different stamp duty can be imposed on the same parcel of land. Once it is admitted by petitioners that a building is constructed over the property in question and spot inspection report clearly indicates that no agricultural activity is being conducted over the non-constructed portion as on the date of instrument of transfer, no exception can be taken to impugned orders with regard to same. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities were right in concluding that the property is in use for non-agricultural purposes. 11. So far as submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is concerned regarding imposition of stamp duty on the basis of property abutting a road, it is discernible from circle rate notified with effect from 01.08.2010 that different valuation has been indicated for non-agricultural properties abutting a road and those not abutting a road. In the present case, a reading of order passed under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 itself indicate that the property in question abuts a Khadanja road, which is not a metalled road. The Circular dated 01.08.2010 has explained the meaning of the term road as a metalled or RCC road. Once the authorities themselves in their order under Section 47A of the Act of 1899 indicate location of the property in question not to be abutting a metalled/RCC road, there was no occasion for them to have established market value in terms of non-agricultural property abutting a road. To that extent, there is certain error in the orders impugned. 12. It is also noticeable that by means of impugned order, penalty to the tune of Rs.6,42,400/- has been imposed upon the petitioner-institution. To that extent, there is certain error in the orders impugned. 12. It is also noticeable that by means of impugned order, penalty to the tune of Rs.6,42,400/- has been imposed upon the petitioner-institution. However, no reasoning whatsoever has been attributed for imposition of such penalty particularly in view of the fact that there was no concealment by the petitioner-institution in the instrument of transfer which clearly indicated a narration of all the facts including conversion of the property, firstly, into non-agricultural and subsequently into agricultural as well as the fact of the portion of the property purchased by the petitioner-institution through instrument of transfer. The orders also do not indicate any concealment of fact having been made in the instrument of transfer and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no occasion for the authorities to have imposed penalty. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders 12.10.2012 and 16.03.2015 are set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty and determination of market rate for the property as abutting a road. The authorities are directed to recalculate additional stamp duty payable by petitioner ignoring the penalty clause and redetermination of additional stamp duty taking the property in question to be non-agricultural but not in the vicinity of a road. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The parties to bear their own costs. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of impugned orders, additional stamp duty has been deposited by the petitioner. The same shall be adjusted by the authorities with regard to new determination of additional stamp duty, which is to be made.