It appears that on the basis of some spot inspection report prepared and submitted before the Collector (Stamps) by SubRegistrar (Stamps), the Collector (Stamps) took up the matter and relying upon the spot inspection report determined that the plot in question was to be treated as a commercial one and, therefore, the deed of transfer of the land in dispute was required to be stamped by treating the plot in question as commercial plot. Aggrieved parties/purchasers of the plot in question preferred a revision petition before the Tax Board. The Tax Board, while primarily taking into consideration that the plot in question was not only situated in the residential area but also recorded as a residential plot and the so-called inspection report was neither prepared in the presence of Respondents No. 1 to 3-purchasers, nor supplied to them, allowed the revision petition, giving rise to present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State would submit that the Tax Board committed patent illegality in allowing the revision petition without taking into consideration that the plot in question was determined as commercial one on the basis of the spot inspection report. He would further submit that the Collector (Stamps), while holding that the plot in question was to be treated as commercial plot, for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, relied upon a Circular No. 2/99, according to which, the plots which are lying on the same lane where
