JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents. 2. This is a case arising out of proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable in State of U.P. whereby deficiency of Stamp Duty was determined on execution of instrument in question i.e. a sale-deed. 3. The Prescribed Authority under Stamps Act took note of surroundings of land in question i.e. an agricultural land on eastern side, a non-agricultural land and an under construction building on western side, a hospital and other construction on northern side and a link road on southern side and further noted that within the radius of 50 mtrs. and 200 mtrs. of land in question, there were developed non-agricultural properties, and therefore, treated the land in question to be a non-agriculture land and accordingly deficiency of stamp duty was determined by impugned order dated 12.11.2020. An appeal thereof was also dismissed by another impugned order dated 22.03.2021. 4. Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that nature of land in question still remains to be an agricultural land. Appropriate proceedings to declare the land to be a non-agriculture land have not been undertaken till date. The petitioner has already paid additional stamp duty disclosing that within the radius of 200 meters in addition to agricultural land there were residential constructions also and for that petitioner paid 50 per cent additional stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that in order to determine deficiency of stamp duty, the Prescribed Authority could not take residential activities around land in question to deem it to be an agricultural land. He further placed reliance on a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Sri Sumati Nath Jain vs. State of U.P. 2016 (2) ADJ 533 that “These propositions clearly flow from a plain reading of the definition of the words "chargeable", "executed" and "instrument" as carried in the Act. In the case of an instrument which creates rights in respect of property and upon which duty is payable on the market value of the property comprised therein, since the tax liability gets fastened immediately upon execution it must necessarily be quantified on the date of execution. The levy of tax or its quantum cannot be left to depend upon hypothetical or imponderable facets or factors. The levy of tax or its quantum cannot be left to depend upon hypothetical or imponderable facets or factors. The value of the property comprised in an instrument has to be adjudged bearing in mind its character and potentiality as on the date of execution of the instrument.” 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents submits that calculation of determination on deficiency of stamp duty was based on nature of construction around the land in question as well as various residential activities within the radius of 50 mtrs and 200 mtrs. Such factual aspects have not been disputed by petitioner. Only on the ground that land in question was not declared to be a non-agricultural land would not estopped the Authority to ascertain status of surrounding land in question on the date of execution of instrument to determine deficiency in stamp duty. Therefore, no illegality was committed in the determination. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs from the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P., 2015 SCC Online All 2935. “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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.” 9. On the factual aspects of this case counsel for petitioner has not able to dispute the construction activities around land in question as well as residential activities within its radius of 50 and 200 mtrs. The Prescribed Authority has determined the deficiency of stamp duty on the basis of residential activities around the land in question and has not presumed the use which petitioner may put the property in future as permitted in Pushpa Sareen (supra). 10. The Prescribed Authority was within its jurisdiction to consider the market value of land in question on the basis of admitted construction activities surrounding the land in question as well as within its radius of 50 mtrs and 200 mtrs. as on date of execution of the instrument and to consider it to be a non-agricultural land. Since Prescribed Authority has not passed the impugned order on hypothetical basis and has taken note of the admitted construction around the land in question, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order as the counsel for petitioner has not able to show any irregularity or illegality in impugned order sufficient to interfere with impugned order under the writ jurisdiction. 11. Writ petition is dismissed.