JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J.: This application is directed against an order dated 14.5.97 passed by the respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure 'I' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the valuation of 3 cottahs of land belonging to the petitioner has been fixed at Rs. 18 lacs. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. Admittedly the proforma respondent No. 5 was owner of a land measuring 3 cottahs situated at Mouza Selimpur within Calcutta Municipal Corporation being premises No. 32/3B, Gariahat Road (South), Calcutta appertaining to Ward No. 92 within Jadavpur Police Station. 4. By reason of 4 registered deeds of sale executed on 23.4.94, the respondent No.5 purchased the said property on a total consideration of Rs. 3,37,500/-. The petitioner having come to learn that the said respondent intended to sale the property, agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. A deed of sale was prepared showing the aforementioned value and the same was presented before the Additional Sub-Registrar, Alipore who assessed the value of the said property at Rs. 21 lacs. As an objection thereto was filed in terms of s. 47B of the Act, the same was referred to the Collector for his determination in terms of the Rule 3 of West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1994. 5. By reason of an order dated 7.3.97 the Collector fixed the valuation at Rs. 18 lacs. The petitioner moved a writ application in this court and by an order dated 24th April, 1997 this court quashed the said order, inter alia, on the ground that no reason was assigned in support thereof. 6. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the direction contained in the order dated 24.4.97 the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. The learned Collector while passing the said order relied upon deed No. 1165 dated 13.5.96, deed No.79 dated 13.6.90, deed No. 2136 of 1994 and deed No. 4017 of 1996. 7. Out of the aforementioned deeds, the deed at Serial No.1 and 2 were situated at Alipore and deed No.3 was situated at Ballygunge Garden and the deed No.4 was in respect of a flat within Ward No. 92 measuring 1400 sqft. 8. The learned Collector noticed that the land is situated on the 16 ft. wide road emanating from Gariahat Road (South). 8. The learned Collector noticed that the land is situated on the 16 ft. wide road emanating from Gariahat Road (South). He considered a report of ADSR, Alipore. It is not borne out from the records as to whether a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner. He held that the lands have certain additional facilities, viz.:- (1) It is near Dakshinapan Market Complex, (2) It is near Madhusudan Mancha, (3) Dhakuria Railway Station is not far from the land in question. It was held:- "The market value also depended upon the passage of time, escalation of the demand shortfall in supply and rush of the people for the land of any locality and stage of development of any particular area. Market value is determined as per local information available which is a constantly changing factor. Sometimes rise in price of land is dis-appropriate due to the shortfall in supply depending upon the sharp rise in demand as land in the locality is very limited in supply and demand is very high. These are all determining factors for assessment of the market value." On the basis of the aforementioned findings he valued the land at Rs. 18 lacs. 9. Although the said observations are relevant for determination of valuation in an appropriate case, it does not appear that any material has been placed before the said authority for the aforementioned purpose. Furthermore, the Collector has to arrive at the market value of the property keeping in view the factor enumerated in the said order. 10. The State of West Bengal in exercise of its power conferred upon it under s. 46A and s. 57 of the said Act made a rule known as the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The said Rules came into force with effect from 31st January, 1994. 10. The State of West Bengal in exercise of its power conferred upon it under s. 46A and s. 57 of the said Act made a rule known as the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The said Rules came into force with effect from 31st January, 1994. Rule 3(1) reads thus:- "The market value within the meaning of clause (16B) of section 2 in relation to any land or any land with building shall, after taking into consideration the particulars referred to in sub-rule (2), be determined on the basis of the highest price for which sale of any land, or any land with building, of similar nature and area in a comparable locality, has been negotiated and settled during the five consecutive years immediately preceding the date of execution of any instrument setting forth such market value, or on the basis of any court decision, information, report or record that may be available from any court or any officer or authority of the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority or local body, or on the basis of consideration stated in such instrument for the sale of such land or land with building, whichever is greater." Sub-rule (2) of r. 3 directs a person executing an instrument to furnish certain particulars as enumerated therein. If particulars so furnished are not correct, the Registering Officer is entitled to refuse to register such instrument after giving such reasonable opportunity of hearing. Sub-rule (7) of r. 3 provides for an enquiry by the Registering Officer if he has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in such instrument upon taking into account any court decision, information, report or record from any court or any officer or any authority of the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority or local body or any person having knowledge relating to market value of property of the like nature and situated in a comparable locality as he deems fit. 11. Rule 4 provides for a reference to the Collector for determination of market value. Rule 5 empowers the Collector to determine the market value on receipt of a reference from the Registering Officer whereupon he is required to issue notice in Form-VI to the persons named therein. 11. Rule 4 provides for a reference to the Collector for determination of market value. Rule 5 empowers the Collector to determine the market value on receipt of a reference from the Registering Officer whereupon he is required to issue notice in Form-VI to the persons named therein. The persons to whom such notices are issued are entitled to file objection in writing to support that the market value of the property has been truly set forth by him in his instrument. Sub-rule (2) of r. 5 empowers the Collector to make an enquiry and to collect information as enumerated therein. Sub-rule (3) of r. 5 provides for an opportunity of hearing to a person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-r. (1) whereafter, he may pass an appropriate order. 12. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue) while passing the same evidently failed to take into consideration the basic factor upon which a valuation can be made. Neither any finding has been arrived at nor does appear that the deeds of sale referred to in the said order which were annexed to the report submitted to him by the Registering Authority fulfilled the aforementioned criteria. In fact, he indisputably has taken into consideration an irrelevant fact, viz. the value of a flat which was within the Police Station of Jadavpur. In terms of r. 3 read with r. 5, the said respondent was bound to take into consideration only the value of the land whereupon interact a building stands. The valuation of a flat can never be a criteria for a land. It is also evident that the said respondent has taken into consideration the value of the land which is situated in different areas. He further failed to point out any advantages or additional facilities excepting referring the distance of 'Dakshinapan' or 'Madhusudan Mancha' or 'Dhakuria Railway Station'. Such purported facilities by themselves may not be the only criteria for valuing the lands inasmuch as the same depends upon various other factors also. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the objections taken by the petitioners had not been considered at all nor the contentions raised by the petitioner had been taken into consideration. 13. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the objections taken by the petitioners had not been considered at all nor the contentions raised by the petitioner had been taken into consideration. 13. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the rules have been framed with a view to prevent undervaluation of the deeds but that does not mean that the authorities would not follow the requirements of the rules. 14. The concerned respondents being statutory authorities are bound to act within the four corners of the statute. They must comply with each and every requirements mentioned therein and if they failed to do so, the order would be a nullity. Although s. 47 A of the said Act has been held intra vires, it is useful to mention that in Umesh Thakur vs. State of Bihar reported in 1994(1) PLJR 727 while upholding the vires of s. 47 A speaking for a division bench I had struck down r. 5 of Bihar Instrument Valuation Rules, 1991 wherein the following observations had been made:- "The Supreme Court in many decisions said that normally the valuation reflected in a sale deed whereby the transfers have been made of the land similarly situated is the best guide but the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that such deeds of sale are often not available. The Courts have also found in number of cases that regard being had to the peculiar feature of the property, a deed of sale executed in relation to a land situate in a neighbouring area or a neighbouring locality may not be held to be decisive for determination of the market value of the land in question. In cases where market value of the land in question has to be ascertained by a court or Tribunal parties are entitled to adduce their respective evidences, not only by producing the deeds of sale but also by bringing on record relevant materials, namely, the locale of the land, the potential value thereof, the area, existence of any tree, well or structure, facilities or irrigation on the land if the same is agricultural or horticultural in nature and many more factors. The State, therefore, while framing r. 5 could not have framed an inflexible rule in terms whereof not only the parties but also the Collector under the Act shall be bound. The State, therefore, while framing r. 5 could not have framed an inflexible rule in terms whereof not only the parties but also the Collector under the Act shall be bound. Such an inflexible rule as laid down in r. 5 of the said Rules makes a mockery of determination of market value by an authority who is required to discharge judicial function. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that laying down an inflexible rule is opposed to the norms of exercise of judicial power in as much as a Court or a Tribunal exercising judicial function has to apply its mind to the correct decision with regard to the matter at issue. Thus while determining the market value of a property all relevant factors have to be taken into consideration. By way of example, I may mention that the market value of a property in a part of the locality of a ward cannot be the same to the area located in the other parts of the same locality. The market value of a property is further dependent upon many factors. Market value of a property situate on a road side of a busy market area cannot be the same as that of the property which is situated on the back side thereof and the ingress and egress therefrom may be by a small lane where even a car cannot enter, although located in the same area". In the said case a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kulkarni M. G. & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 1984(2) KLJ 341 was followed. 14. In this view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained. This application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4 for passing an order afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore, but in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed and the matter sent back for fresh decision with directions.