JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners have purchased Arazi Khata No. 163 Khasra No. 3 area 0.607 after paying sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/- and stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. After said sale deed in question has been executed reference was made by Registrar pointing deficiency in stamp duty to Additional District Magistrate who in his turn issued notices to the petitioners and pursuant to said notice petitioners appeared and filed their objection and specifically contended that stamp duty has rightly been paid and reference was also given of the stamp duty which has been paid in respect of adjoining plots. Thereafter Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad on 6.2.1997 came to the conclusion that circle rate fixed is Rs. 2.00 lacs per acre, as such there is deficiency to the tune of Rs. 31,500.00 and penalty of Rs. 3,350.00 was imposed and directives were issued that sale deed under the provisions of Stamp Act Section 33/40/47-A read with Rule 350 be impounded. Aggrieved petitioners preferred Revision and said Revision had also been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed contending therein that petitioner has purchased 1.50 acres of land of Mangupura Khasra No. 3 Kata No. 163. Stamp duty has been paid contrary to the circle rate and minimum circle rate fixed by the Collector was Rs. two lac per acre, as such rightful adjudication and imposition has been done and as such no interference be made. 3. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and therein Map has also been appended to show exact situation of land in question. 4. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 5. Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that both Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad as well as Revising Authority have totally misdirected themselves and market value of the property has been determined merely on the basis of circle rate prescribed without making any real and effective endeavour to determine the market value of the property qua which material had been furnished and which was available on record as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 6. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been assigned for coming to the conclusion that instrument in question was under valued and as such no interference is required. 7. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that after sale deed in question had been executed by paying stamp duty. Reference was made by Sub-Registrar showing deficiency of stamp duty and in the said reference show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after show cause notice was received objections were filed mentioning therein that spot inspection is necessary to assess the market value of the property in question and as such spot inspection be made and further categorical mention was made that stamp duty has been sufficiently paid and circle rate of kissan zamin nature of which is khadar, Ganga Doyam, circle rate of said land is fixed as Rs. 50,000/- per acre and 2 exemplar has also been filed in respect of other two cases of adjoining land in case No. 214 of 1992 and 210 of 1995. Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad at no point of time had ever endeavoured to get spot inspection made and based on the circle rate provided proceeded to assess the stamp duty. Petitioner has brought on record by means of Annexure-5 to the writ petition documents to show that as far as land in respect of doyam, aawal khadar aawal and khadar, circle rate was fixed as Rs. 50,000/- effective w.e.f. 1.9.1995. In the counter affidavit which has been filed circle rate has been shown in respect of gram Mangupura at the rate of Rs. 2.00 lac per acre. 8. At this juncture the view point of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court is being looked into. 9. Division Bench of this Court in 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 under valued it for the purpose of deceitful gain. 10. 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 under valued it for the purpose of deceitful gain. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in R.C. Bansal v. D.M., A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 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 on the other hand Collector is also empowered to decide that actual market value is more than the circle rates. 11. In State of Punjab v. Mahabir Singh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2994 which was a case from Punjab it has been 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 pre-determined. 12. In R.K. Agarwal v. C.C.R.A., 1997 R.D. 383 a Single Judge of this Court 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. 13. On the touchstone of the pronouncement quoted above fact of the present case is being looked into. In the present case sole criteria and basis taken by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad which has been affirmed by the Revising Authority is circle rate without undertaking any exercise whatsoever by making spot inspection of the property in question and get market value determine market value of property on the basis of evidence adduced and documentary evidence available on record. Exemplars which has been cited have also been totally ignored. Fact of the matter is that no exercise whatsoever has been undertaken to determine market value. 14. Consequently order dated 6.2.1997 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad and order dated 23.7.1997 passed by Revising authority are hereby quashed and set aside. Exemplars which has been cited have also been totally ignored. Fact of the matter is that no exercise whatsoever has been undertaken to determine market value. 14. Consequently order dated 6.2.1997 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Moradabad and order dated 23.7.1997 passed by Revising authority are hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back for being decided afresh in accordance with law by the authority concerned preferably within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 15. For the reasons stated above, present writ petition is allowed and disposed of. ———