JUDGMENT : (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated August 2, 2022 passed by Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Chitrakoot Division, Banda/respondent No. 2 and the impugned order dated January 31, 2020 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Stamp Collector, Mahoba/respondent No.3 FACTS 2. Factual matrix of the present case is delineated below: a) The petitioner is a resident of village Jaitpur, Tehsil Kulpahar, District Mahoba, who purchased an agricultural land through a registered sale deed dated January 12, 2016 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. b) On February 11, 2016, the petitioner filed a mutation application for her name to be mutated in the revenue record, which was subsequently allowed by the Tehsildar vide an order dated February 19, 2016 and the petitioner's name has been entered in the revenue record. c) On March 3, 2016, The Sahayak Mahanirikshak Nibandhan, Mahoba/ respondent No. 4 submitted a report before the respondent No. 3, citing a deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs.2,38,720/- with regard to the petitioner's sale deed. d) Based on the report of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and issued notice on July 16, 2016. The petitioner responded to the notice by filing a reply dated April 24, 2017 denying the allegations. e) On September 12, 2018, the Tehsildar conducted a spot inspection and confirmed that Plot No. 2563 and Plot No. 2564 are agricultural land with crops of ‘Urad’ and ‘Kachhiyana.’ f) On January 31, 2020, the respondent No. 3 passed an order whereby he directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,34,080/- and the deficit registration fee of Rs. 4,640/- along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with respect to the sale deed in question. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp fee from the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. June 12, 2016 till the date of deposit of stamp duty. 4,640/- along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with respect to the sale deed in question. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp fee from the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. June 12, 2016 till the date of deposit of stamp duty. g) Against the order passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 56(1-A) of the Act before the respondent No. 2 who, vide order dated August 2, 2022 partially allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of deficit stamp duty from Rs. 2,34,080/- to Rs. 1,09,880/-. h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated January 31, 2020 and August 2, 2022 passed by the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 3. Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions: (a) The circle rate of the petitioner's land is evident from the Annual Valuation List dated August 1, 2017 issued by the District Magistrate's office. (b)The petitioner has paid stamp duty based on valid rate lists and considerations such as the plot's adjacency to a road. (c) The Tehsildar and Area Lekhpal conducted a spot inspection on September 12, 2018 and submitted their report. The report stated that Plot No. 2563 and Plot No. 2564 are agricultural lands with crops 'Urad and Kachhiyana'. (d) Since the land is recorded as agricultural land in the existing revenue record and lacks a declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, its agricultural nature remains unchanged. Therefore, its market value for stamp duty payment should be assessed on its agricultural character rather than speculative future potentiality. (e) The adjacent agricultural property's alleged residential use, leading to undervaluation claims, lacks rational basis and is based on arbitrary grounds, as noted in the spot inspection report and the boundary wall mentioned is for protecting agricultural produce from animals, not indicative of residential use, especially as the petitioner's share in land does not has such a wall. (f) Respondent No.2's stamp duty demand contradicts the existing annual valuation list and ignores the petitioner's agricultural activities as confirmed by the Tehsildar's report and revenue records. (f) Respondent No.2's stamp duty demand contradicts the existing annual valuation list and ignores the petitioner's agricultural activities as confirmed by the Tehsildar's report and revenue records. (g) The sale deed indicates that the petitioner has paid extended valuation due to the land's proximity to Abadi land, negating any deficiency in stamp duty or registration fee. (h) The petitioner, being a lady, should receive the benefit of stamp duty exemptions as per the law. (i) To buttress his arguments, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court in Varun Goyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 15480 and Raj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 151 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 4. Sri Rishi Kumar, learned additional chief standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has made the following submissions: (a) A physical spot inspection was carried out by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp, Mahoba, and the Sub Registrar, Kulpahar, Mahoba on February 20, 2016. They found that certain pieces of land, including Gata No. 2563 and 2564, had been sold to the petitioner. (b) Gata No. 2563 is situated between Gwalbaba temple and Vindvasni Mata with walls and houses and Gata No. 2564 is adjacent to Gata No. 2563, both the plots are surrounded by residential activities and recorded as residential land in Khasra of fasli year 1421.. (c) The stamp duty calculation should have been based on residential rates for Gata No. 2563 and 2564, as they are surrounded by residential activities, contrary to agricultural rates applied. (d) The total valuation of the land as per circle rates and the relaxation for the petitioner being a lady, leading to a deficiency in stamp duty and registration fees as per their calculation. (e) The provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act do not control the determination of market value for stamp duty under the Act. (f) To buttress his arguments, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court in cases of Haroon Ahmad v. State of U.P. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 2701 and Mahendra Yadav v. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, District Azamgarh & Others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16301 of 2009 decided on April 16, 2010). ANALYSIS 5. Writ Petition No.16301 of 2009 decided on April 16, 2010). ANALYSIS 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In the case at hand, the core issue revolves around the classification of the land as agricultural versus residential for the purpose of stamp duty calculation. Both the parties have relied upon spot inspection reports to support their respective claims regarding the true nature of land. 7. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the land in question is correctly categorized as agricultural, as per the petitioner's claims based on revenue records and agricultural activities, or should it be classified as residential, as argued by the respondents due to the surrounding residential activities and should the calculation of the stamp duty be based on the actual nature of the land transaction taking into account its current use and surrounding activities, or should it rely solely on revenue entries or nomenclature? 8. The respondent No. 3, in his order dated January 31, 2020 while determining the deficiency in stamp duty had recorded the findings that the land in question, that is, Gata Nos. 2563 and 2564, is located in an area with residential activities and is adjacent to road and populated area, as observed in the spot inspection report by respondent No. 4 dated March 3, 2016 and revenue records. Further the report of Naib Tehsildar, Kulpahad also confirmed the presence of walls, houses, and population in Gata No. 2563 and 2564. Hence he stated that the land in question should be evaluated at residential rates for stamp duty purposes. 9. The respondent no. 2, while passing the order in appeal dated August 2, 2022 had took into his consideration the non agricultural nature of the land in question as recorded in the revenue records (Khasra of fasli year 1425) and made a fresh calculation with respect to the same. Subsequently, he partially corrected the order passed by the respondent No. 3 and reduced the amount of deficit stamp duty from Rs. 2,34,080/- to Rs. 1,09,880/- 10. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Varun Goyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) wherein the Court highlighted the importance of a rational basis for valuation and decision-making in matters related to stamp duty and property valuation. 2,34,080/- to Rs. 1,09,880/- 10. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Varun Goyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) wherein the Court highlighted the importance of a rational basis for valuation and decision-making in matters related to stamp duty and property valuation. The Court emphasized the need for objective criteria and valid comparisons when assessing undervaluation and determining market value to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrary judgments. Ratio of the judgment is extracted below for a better reference: “31. In the facts of the case, it is admitted that the property is agricultural property and is being used for agricultural purpose, the property adjoining the property is also agricultural property. The basis of the Collector concluding that the property is undervalued is the spot inspection report, stating that the adjoining agricultural property is being plotted for residential purpose. The exemplars (sale deeds) referred to have not been discussed, nor does it show they are comparable with the property in question. The property on which plotting is taking place is agricultural land and not abadi. It is not the case of the State that the land in and around the property in question has become abadi primarily. The minimum value fixed by the Collector is Rs. 55 lacs per hectare for agricultural land whereas the Collector has determined the market value at Rs. 210 lac per hectare i.e. four times over and above the minimum value fixed under the Rules, which on the face of it appears to be irrational. The belief must not be arbitrary or purely subjective satisfaction, belief must have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief/opinion. For the reasons and law stated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, Additional Commissioner (Stamp) Aligarh Division, Aligarh and order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the Collector, Hathras are quashed. The sum of deficient stamp duty deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to 8% interest from the date of deposit.” 11. The sum of deficient stamp duty deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to 8% interest from the date of deposit.” 11. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) wherein the Court underscored the importance of legal definitions and declarations under relevant land tenure laws in determining the nature of land for stamp duty assessment. It clarifies that the intended use and legal status of the land, as per established legal principles and court precedents, are pivotal in determining stamp duty obligations, even in cases of proximity to non-agricultural areas. The learned counsel specifically relies upon paragraph No. 16 of this judgment which is extracted below: “16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad, reported in (2000) 3 AWC 2587 ; Smt. Sushila Verma v. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 2 AWC 1492 and Sudama v. Chief Controlling Authority, reported in (2013) 4 AWC 3571 .” 12. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate bench this Court in case of Haroon Ahmad v. State of U.P. (supra). Relevant paragraphs of the judgment pointed out by the learned counsel are extracted below: “17. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate bench this Court in case of Haroon Ahmad v. State of U.P. (supra). Relevant paragraphs of the judgment pointed out by the learned counsel are extracted below: “17. Non-issuance of the notification under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be the basis for questioning the determination of the market value of land. Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is for different purposes and cannot control the determination of the market value under the Indian Stamp Act. 18. Impact of section 142 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as well as the purpose of issuance of notification under section 143, vis -a-vis its applicability on the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, has not been considered in the judgements relied upon by the petitioner. This Court finds no reason to accept the submission raised by the petitioner nor the judgments relied upon by the petitioner can be the reason for questioning the determination of the market value of the land under transfer in the facts of the case. 19. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are clearly distinct and operate in different field. Determination of the market value of plot under sale is to be made under the Indian Stamp Act as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. Such determination is not controlled in any manner by the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Notification under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can at best be one of the factors for consideration at the time of determination of the market value under the Indian Stamp Act.” 13. Counsel for the respondents further relies upon the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in case of Mahendra Yadav v. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, District Azamgarh & Others (Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.16301 of 2009 decided on April 16, 2010) wherein the Court emphasized that the the utility of the land on the date of execution of the deed shall be taken into consideration for the determination of land’s nature and valuation. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted below: “It is true that the future potentiality of the land cannot be seen but the utility of the land on the date of execution of the deed can very well be seen. A small tract of land measuring only about 680 sq.meter does create a doubt that the same is for the purpose of agriculture especially when there is no other holding of the petitioner in which agriculture is being done. The gift has been made in favour of the institution and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the said property would be put to agriculture use. Therefore, considering the smallness of the land its utility on the date of execution of the sale deed has rightly been held to be residential and, therefore, the finding of the Collector cannot be doubted. Therefore, so far as declaration under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act is concerned the said declaration is for the purpose of exemption of lagan or revenue on the said land and it has nothing to do with the provisions of the Stamp Act. Section 47-A of the Act clearly provides that the market value of the property is to be determined by the Collector irrespective of the nature of the land.” 14. In a recent judgment passed by this Court in case of Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ C No. 18495 of 2021 decided on May 8, 2024), I have highlighted the crucial role of spot verification in determining the nature of land and advised the authorities to prioritize verified information over descriptions provided in registration deeds which in my view helps in maintaining the accuracy, fairness, and legality in assessments and decisions related to land usage. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted below: “9. It is to be noted that the relevance of the spot verification carried out by the authorities themselves is paramount in nature and it is from such verification that the assessment was carried out by the authorities with regard to the nature of the land. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted below: “9. It is to be noted that the relevance of the spot verification carried out by the authorities themselves is paramount in nature and it is from such verification that the assessment was carried out by the authorities with regard to the nature of the land. For example, if a person in a deed of sale states that the land, that is being sold, is agricultural land containing a water body and on the spot verification it is found out that the land is actually being used for the purpose of running a factory, it is the spot verification that has to be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. The description of the property as given by the vendor/vendee in a registration deed cannot, under any circumstances, be accepted as the ultimate truth de hors the inspection carried out by the authorities.” 15. Upon a perusal of the spot inspection report submitted by the Tehsildar, it is clear that crops of ‘Urad and Kachhiyana’ are found to be sowed on the land in question which indicates that the land is being used for agricultural purposes. It can also be seen from the record that the land in question was recorded as residential in Khasra of Fasli year 1421 as per the findings of the respondent No. 3 and in Khasra of Fasli year 1425 only certain part of the aforesaid land was recorded as residential and not the entire land in question as per the findings of the respondent No. 2. 16. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has held that merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land the same would not loose its character as agricultual land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. 17. In light of the above discussion, I am of the clear view that the spot inspection by the authorities is the key factor in determining the true nature of a land or property during transactions. The Khasra record should not be blindly accepted as accurate on the basis of its descriptions in the official record without validation from on-site inspections. In the present case it is evident from the record that petitioner’s land is being used for agricultural purposes which indicates its agricultural nature. The Khasra record should not be blindly accepted as accurate on the basis of its descriptions in the official record without validation from on-site inspections. In the present case it is evident from the record that petitioner’s land is being used for agricultural purposes which indicates its agricultural nature. This fact should have been considered by the authorities below but they failed to do so which makes the orders passed by them unsustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated January 31, 2020 and August 2, 2022 passed by the respondent authorities are quashed and set aside. Consequential reliefs to follow. 19. Any amount paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him by the respondents within a period of six weeks from date.