RAJIV Sharma, J. - (1.) Learned Coun sel for the parties.
(2.) IT is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's Society purchased an agricultural plot No. 30 con sisting of 1 bigha 18 biswa 13 dhur in village Khojanpur, outside the circle of Na- garpalika Faizabad from Narendra Bahadur Singh and Dhirendra Pratap Singh, for a sale consideration of Rs. 43,000/- and sale deed was executed by them on 12. 4. 1988. After lapse of about ten years, a show cause notice purporting to be under section 47-A/33 of the Act was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Faiza bad requiring, the petitioner to show cause on 18. 6. 1998 against the deficiency in the payment of stamp duty on the above sale deed. The petitioner submitted a reply stating therein that proceedings contem plated to be initiated under section 47-A are barred by limitation. IT was also stated that stamp is required to be paid on the basis of the nature of the land purchased and not on the future potential and as such notice is Mabte to be recalled. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities did not proceed after filing of the objection but all of a sudden on 16. 12. 2002, a notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner Stamps, Faizabad Division requiring the petitioner to show cause against the alleged deficiency. Again the petitioner reiterated that the proceedings initiated against him are time barred in view of sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Act which provides that no action under sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of 4 years from the date of execution of the instruments. Further, the proviso stipulates that with the prior permission of the State Government the action under the above provision can be taken after a period of 4 years but before a period of 8 years from the date of execution of the instrument. Moreover, the State Government had issued a Government Or der dated 16th August, 1999 directing that the value of the plots of land is not to be determined on the basis of the potential value of the land but according to the rates applicable on the date of execution of the sale deed. Counsel for the petitioner con tends that ignoring the above statutory provisions and Government Order, the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps in an arbi trary manner held the sale deed to be un dervalued and assessed a deficiency of Rs. 25,415 in stamp duty. Against the said or der, appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19. 10. 2005 without considering the legal pleas raised by the petitioner.
(3.) STATE Counsel submits that the or der dated 12. 10. 2004 and 19. 10. 2005 are perfectly justified and there is no infirmity. He also submits that the petitioner has not produced any evidence regarding agricul ture activities over the land in question. As regard the initiation of proceedings, it has been submitted by him that the inspections was conducted in October, 1990 and on 7. 1. 1991 certified copy of the sale deed in question was forwarded by Sub-Registrar, Faizabad to the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Faizabad thus the pro ceedings are not time barred as alleged by the petitioner. In the case of Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, 1996 (87) RD 419 the Apex Court had held that situation of a property in an area close to a decent colony not by itself would make it part thereof and should not be a factor for ap proach of the authority in determining the market value. According to the said deci sion, valuation has to be determined on constructive materials which could be made available before the authorities con cerned.;