HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1000667 of 2013 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 28.10.2009, whereby the deficiency of stamp duty was assessed based upon an inspection carried out as well as the order dated 05.10.2012, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased 1/5 share of the agricultural property from the recorded tenure holder. Subsequently, on the basis of the inspection carried out, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegation by stating that the property in question was an agricultural property. However, on the basis of the inspection carried, which revealed that the property in question was situate behind a home and some shops and a view was formed that the property was usable for the residential purposes and based upon the said report, the deficiency was assessed. The appellate authority has affirmed the order. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stamp duty cannot be assessed based upon the potentiality of the land as has been decided by this Court in the case of Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sister vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 (4) All WC 3735. It is also argued by the petitioner that the land in question continues to be an agricultural Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kaushal Kishor Tiwari, Kafiya, Madhavendra Nath Misra, Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Rajeshwari Stamp .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. U.P. And Others .....Respondent(s) property even on the date when the order was passed. 5. Considering the submission that the deficiency has been assessed solely upon the potentiality of land, which is contrary to the settled proposition as decided by this Court in the case of Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sister (supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 28.10.2009 and 05.10.2012 are quashed. September 3, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 1000667 of 2013 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench