The main legal point established is that the determination of market value for stamp duty purposes requires an independent exercise and consideration of the actual valuation of the property, as highlighted by relevant legal precedents.

Petitioner purchased a part of land No. 109 measuring 127. 5 Sq. m. on 7. 2. 1996 situated at Sulem Sarai area from Smt. Bela Devi and paid cost of the said land of Rs. 61,500/- and stamp duty of Rs. 8335/- accordingly. Thereafter, after gap of one year petitioner received show cause, notice on 31. 1. 1997 mentioning therein as to why deficiency of stamp duty be not imposed on the petitioner as well as penalty to which petitioner filed his objection on 5. 6. 1997. Thereafter order was passed holding therein deficiency of stamp duty and petitioner was asked to pay sum of Rs. 8775/ -. Against said order petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

2. After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Krishna Mishra, contended with vehemence that in the present case no exercise whatsoever was undertaken by the authority concerned and on mere surmises and conjecture deficiency in stamp duty has been noted and same has been directed to be recovered, as such orders impugned in question are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and as such no interference is required to be made.

5. Before proceedings to consider the case in hand the view point of this Court and Apex Court is being looked into.

6. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Bansal v. D. M. , AIR. 1999 SC 2126 has held that circle rates under Rule 340-A is merely a guideline and at best prima facie rate of the area concerned and on the one hand parties to the deed are entitled to say that actual valuation is less than the circle rate and the other hand Collector is also empowered to decide that actual market value is more than the circle rates.

7. Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Mahabir Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2994 has held, that circle rate is merely a guideline provided by the State which would only serve as prima facie material and that no absolute higher or minimum value can be predetermined. The Supreme Court approved the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in A. I. R. 1991 Punjab & Haryana 26 which held that the guidelines cannot control the quasi judicial discretion to determine the correct valuation of the property.

8. This Court in the case of M/s. Maya Foods v. C. C. R. A. 1999 (90) RD 57 (HC) held that market value of the land cannot be determined with reference to the use of the land to which buyer intends to put it and that in determining the market value the potential of the land as on the date of the sale alone can be taken into account and not the potential it may have in the distant future.

9. This Court again in the case of R. K. Agarwal v. C. C. R. A. 1997 RD 383 has held that assumed rental value without any basis cannot form the basis for determining market value and that the proper course is to decide the market value on the basis of some exemplars of other land in the vicinity which had been sold at the relevant time.

10. In the case of Smt. Prabhawati v. C. C. R. A, 1996 RD 419 Honble Supreme Court held that mere smallness of the area would not suggest the same by itself to be a costly property and that merely because property situated in an area which is close to a decent colony where people of high income group reside does not by itself make it a part thereof.

11. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kaka Singh v. Addl. Collector & Dist. Magistrate (F&r), AIR 1986 All. 107 has held that treating method of calculation of market value given under Rule 341 as conclusive and final is erroneous in law. It has further been held that the purpose of entire exercise under section 47-A as supplemented by the relevant rules is to see as to whether the parties to the conveyance or instrument have deliberately un