JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J. (Oral): - The petitioner had purchased agricultural land measuring 42 kanals 2 marlas. Sale deed in this regard was registered on 31.10.2007. Total sale consideration, as paid, was Rs.28 lacs. The petitioner affixed the stamp duty of Rs.1,12,000/- for getting the sale deed registered. At the time of registering the sale deed, the Sub Registrar raised an objection that the Collector rates in the revenue estate of Godata was Rs.6,00000/- per acre. The petitioner thereafter was asked to affix an additional stamp fee of Rs.14,300/-. He deposited the same under protest on 2.12.2007. The sale deed of the petitioner was accordingly registered. As per the petitioner, some of the officials demanded some illegal gratification and, therefore, gave an undated report of Patwari Halqa alleging that the market value of the land was Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. Sub Registrar, Hodal, referred the matter to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on 20.11.2007. On this basis, ultimately the petitioner has been asked to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.1,81,060/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner has now filed this petition to challenge the same. 2. In response to notice, the State counsel would point out to the reply to say that on the basis of the report given by the Patwari, the market value of the land was found to be Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and accordingly would justify the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty charges. The petitioner, on the other hand, would make reference to the Collector rates, which were circulated in the area, as per which, he had affixed the stamp duty on the sale deed. The petitioner, thus, would say that the action of the Collector as well as Commission is illegal and unjustified. 3. At the time of arguments, the State counsel could only rely upon the report circulated by the Patwari to urge that the market fate of the land was Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. There is no material placed on record in support of this submission. The counsel is justified in referring to the Collector rates, which are also fixed on the basis of prevalent price of the land in the area. 4. There is no material placed on record in support of this submission. The counsel is justified in referring to the Collector rates, which are also fixed on the basis of prevalent price of the land in the area. 4. Considering this aspect, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner for affixing stamp duty has not been properly considered by the Collector. Even the Commissioner has also not considered the submissions in the light of observations made above. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders are set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector to re-consider the entire issue on the basis of material that the parties may produce. The petitioner would be at liberty to lead evidence indicating the value of the land in the area at the relevant time. Similarly, the Collector would also be at liberty to take into consideration any evidence of the sale deed within the relevant area at the relevant time and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. --------------