RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) UNDER challenge in the writ petition is the orders dated 10.04.2008 and 05.12.2005 passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contained as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2005 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, District Barabanki. The petitioners had in fact purchased the agricultural land and the sale deed of the plot i.e. 6/7th part of plot no. 1295 situated at Village Jauras, Haidergarh, District Barabanki was executed on 12.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records. It is alleged that subsequently after the execution of the sale deed the authorities had taken suo motu proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act with respect to alleged deficiency in the stamp duty in the purchase of the plot in question. In this regard Tehsildar, Haidergarh had submitted the report regarding the deficiency of the stamp mentioning therein that the land in question is being used for industrial purpose. In this regard the opposite party no.3 had issued the notice under section 47-A dated 6.07.2005 to the petitioners to which a reply was submitted by the petitioners on 05.09.2005 The Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Barabanki had made spot inspection on 19.11.2005 and thereafter by order dated 05.12.2005 the order enforcing the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 1,29,580/- was passed. It was in pursuance of the said order that the petitioners had deposited the Rs. 50,000/- on 15.09.2007.
(3.) THE petitioners feeling aggrieved had filed the appeal under section 47-A/33. In the said appeal it was specifically pleased that the land in question is an agricultural land and at the time of the execution of the sale deed it was registered as agricultural land in revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the impugned order dated 05.12.2005 is manifestly wrong and illegal as unless a declaration is made under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, declaring the land to be as commercial or industrial land, the opposite parties cannot presume it to be an industrial land and demand the stamp duty treating it to be industrial land.;