Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially, respondent-vendee Surjit Singh Dhillon son of Gurdial Singh Dhillon (since deceased), now being represented by respondent Nos.1 to 4, had purchased the plot/property, in question, vide registered sale-deed dated 14.03.2000. According to the Sub-Registrar, the respondentvendee would have to pay more stamp duty at the market value than that of paid by him. Consequently, he referred the matter to the Collector for deciding the question of valuation of market price and stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act & relevant Rules framed thereunder”).

2. Sequelly, the Collector assessed the value of the plot in question and ordered the recovery of stamp fees for remaining valuation of Rs. 8 lacs vide order dated 10.08.2000.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the original vendee- Surjit Singh Dhillon, was accepted and the order of the Collector was set aside, by means of impugned judgment dated 27.08.2002 by the Additional District Judge(Appellate Court).

4. Likewise, petitioners-State of Punjab and its officers did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned judgment, invoking the provisions under Section 115 CPC.

5. As, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, despite service, therefore, after hearing the learned State Counsel, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.

6. As is evident from the record that, the Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Collector by way of impugned judgment dated 27.08.2002. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Appellate Court, to set aside the order was that, neither any criteria has been adopted, nor proper enquiry was held in assessing the market value of the plot in question by the Collector.

7. Here to me, the Appellate Court has rightly observed that neither any criteria was adopted nor proper enquiry was conducted to determine the market value of the disputed property by the Collector. It is now well-settled principle of law that the Collector has the mandatory/statutory duty to hold an enquiry to determine the market price for the purpose of stamp duty in the same manner prescribed by the Act and the relevant Rules, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties in this regard and not otherwise. He was required to provide an adequate opportunity to the vendee to produce the evidence available or collected by him. Not only that, the vendee can also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence collected by the competent authority in this regard. This matter is no more res integra and is now well-settled.

8. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this court in case Lalita Devi v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division,Gurgaon 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 653, it was ruled as under:-

“Before passing an order under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A, the Collector, is under a statutory duty to hold an enquiry and also give opportunity to the vendee and the Sub Registrar to project their respective cases on the issue of determination of the value of the land or property which is subject-matter of the deed. The Collector is also required to disclose the evidence collected during the course of enquiry or otherwise and give opportunity to both the parties to support or controvert such evidence. In the present case, the Collector neither made enquiry envisaged by Section 47-A(2) and Rule 4 nor did he give opportunity to the petitioners to explain the circumstances appearing before them or to rebut the evidence collected at the time of inspectio