JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the Collector, Ghaziabad under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. By the said order the Collector has determined deficiency in the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 79,26,700/- and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 100,000/- and thus, a total amount of Rs. 80,26,700/- has been determined against the petitioner. 3. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a duly incorporated Company under the Companies Act, 1956. It purchased a commercial land measuring 10757.94 sqr.mtrs. situated on plot C-2, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad through a sale-deed dated 22.1.2008 from one M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 62 crores. It is submitted that after a gap of about more than two years, a notice dated 13.10.2010 was issued purporting to be a notice under Section 47-A of the Act asking the petitioner as to why proceeding should not be initiated against him for not setting forth the true and correct value of the property with the object of evading stamp duty, thereby causing loss of revenue to the public to the tune of Rs. 79,26,700/-. Pursuant to said notice, Stamp Case No. 131 of 2010 was registered and the petitioner submitted its reply dated 22.11.2010. However, the Stamp Authority did not accept the objections of the petitioner raised in its reply and determined the deficiency of stamp value to the tune of Rs. 79,26,700/- and further imposed penalty of 100,000/- by the impugned order dated 13.1.2011. Hence this petition. 5. The contention of the petitioner essentially is that the vendor, namely, M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the said property from the Ghaziabad Development Authority pursuant to a public auction dated 16.5.2006 and the Ghaziabad Development Authority executed a sale-deed in favour of the aforesaid vendor on 14.1.2008 and the same was registered with the Sub-Registrar-4, Ghaziabad upon a consideration of Rs. 27,91,10,900/- only. Immediately after eight days the petitioner purchased the same property from the aforesaid vendor for a consideration of Rs. 27,91,10,900/- only. Immediately after eight days the petitioner purchased the same property from the aforesaid vendor for a consideration of Rs. 62 crores, which is a 225% hike in the price and, therefore, it cannot be said that the property in question, in any manner, was under valued. 6. It is further contended that the Collector has solely relied upon an ex parte inspection report dated 30.8.2010, whereby without considering any relevant material the total value of the property has been assessed at Rs. 69,92,66,100/- as against Rs. 62 crores, declared by the petitioner. Since the said report was prior to the issuance of notice under Section 47 of the Act, the same could be relevant, if at all, only for initiation of proceedings under Section 47 and not thereafter. Therefore, the said report could not have been relied upon by the Collector. 7. Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel further asserts that other than the said report dated 30.8.2010, there was no material which could have led the Collector to believe that such circumstances existed which could even suggest any fraudulent evasion of stamp duty by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector without application of mind and without making any spot inspection of the property in which the petitioner could be associated with, and has unilaterally relied upon a report submitted prior to the issuance of notice under Section 33/47-A of the Act. He submitted that the said proceeding is in violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules) and thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawean @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 511. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Act and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, who have agreed that this petition be disposed of finally at this stage only. 11. Section 47-A of the Act provides for proceedings to be initiated on account of under valuation of an instrument. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, who have agreed that this petition be disposed of finally at this stage only. 11. Section 47-A of the Act provides for proceedings to be initiated on account of under valuation of an instrument. It gives power to the Collector, either on reference by some other authority or suo motu, to re-determine the market value and to proceed against such defaulter if he is of the opinion that the subject matter of the instrument so executed and registered has been under valued. This essentially means that the Collector has to satisfy itself regarding the true and correct market value of the property set forth in the instrument for the purpose of determination and assessment of stamp duty to be levied. By judicial pronouncements it has been held that under the Stamp Act or the aforesaid 1997 Rules no methodology has been drawn to determine the true and correct market value of any property after the instrument has been registered. Therefore, the general principles upon which market value is assessed for determination of compensation under the ‘Land Acquisition Act’, would be just, fair and proper principle to be applied for evaluating the market value of any property for levy of stamp duty.It is also esentially to be seen by the Collector that the person presenting the instrument has not only undervalued the property but has done so with the motive of ‘fraudulent evasion’ of duty for the purpose of levy of penalty as contemplated under the Act. 12. From the order impugned it is not reflected at all that for re-determination of market value any such exercise was undertaken by the Collector. Even the spot inspection as required under the Rules, of the property with the association of the petitioner was not made. The Collector has merely relied upon an ex parte inspection report dated 30.8.2010 suggesting under valuation to the tune of Rs. 79 lakhs and odd. This report also does not indicate as to how the disclosure of the petitioner regarding the market value of the property @ Rs. 57000/- per sq.mtr. as against the prevalent circle rate of Rs. 35000/- per sq.mtr. was not correct. 79 lakhs and odd. This report also does not indicate as to how the disclosure of the petitioner regarding the market value of the property @ Rs. 57000/- per sq.mtr. as against the prevalent circle rate of Rs. 35000/- per sq.mtr. was not correct. In any case, the report dated 30.8.2010 prior to issuance of notice under Section 47 dated 13.10.2010, can at best, form the basis or may be relevant only for initiating proceedings under Section 47 and is of no value thereafter. Once proceeding under Section 47 has been drawn, the Collector must undertake the exercise to re-determine the market value itself in the manner described above. That having not been done, I am unable to save the order impugned and it must go. 13. Therefore, upon the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the order impugned dated 13.1.2011 cannot be further sustained and thus, in my opinion, it would not be justiciable to relegate the petitioner to alternative remedy, but it would meet the ends of justice if the matter is remanded back to the Collector to re-determine the true and correct market value of the property as per the procedure prescribed under the law and also according to the views expressed by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra). 14. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13.1.2011 is hereby quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to the Collector to proceed afresh in accordance with law and as indicated above. It is made clear that no fresh notice for initiating the proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of the Act is required to be issued to the petitioner. The Collector shall, however, inform the petitioner of the date on which the inspection of the property in question is to be made and thereafter he shall proceed in accordance with law. —————