JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Mathura and the appellate order thereto dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short ‘Act’) for determining the deficiency in stamp duty on the instrument of Gift-deed No. 10925 of 2008 and corrigendum deed (Munassa) No. 109256 of 2008 forming part of it both dated 29.12.2008. 2. There is no dispute to the nature of the above instrument and the same is admitted to be a deed of gift in respect of land of Khasra No. 186 village Vrindavan Bangar, district Mathura on which construction of a temple was in progress. 3. The petitioner in the aforesaid deed of gift disclosed the value of the land but not of the construction and paid stamp duty on the value of the land alone as per the prevailing circle rate. 4. The authorities by the impugned orders on the basis of a report of a technical committee comprising of engineers of the Public Works Department held that the construction existing over the said land was not of not less than Rs. 46,52,50,548/- in value and, as such, on the above value of the construction directed for payment of stamp duty of Rs. 3,25,67,570/-. 5. In assailing the above orders of the authorities, there is no dispute with regard to the value of the land gifted and the only controversy is regarding the value of the construction and the stamp duty payable thereon. 6. I have heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. They have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission on the basis of the relevant affidavits already exchanged. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the value of the construction of incomplete or half built temple existing on the land has been determined exclusively on the basis of the reports of the technical committee even without supplying copies of the same and affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner to file objections against them. The two reports in this regard on record dated 31.3.2009 and 18.11.2009 are inadmissible and that the market value is not relevant where the instrument of gift is subject to chargeablity of stamp duty. 9. The two reports in this regard on record dated 31.3.2009 and 18.11.2009 are inadmissible and that the market value is not relevant where the instrument of gift is subject to chargeablity of stamp duty. 9. An instrument of gift is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 33 of Schedule 1-B of the Act which reads as under: 10. A plain reading of the aforesaid Article makes it clear that stamp duty on a Gift-deed is chargeable as is provided under Article 23 clause (a) of Schedule 1-B on a deed of conveyance of sale on a consideration equal to the “value of the property”. 11. In Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Act the expression used is “value of the consideration of such conveyance as set forth or the market value of the immovable property which is the subject of such conveyance, whichever is greater”. Thus, in the said Article the emphasis is on consideration as set forth or the market value of the immovable property whichever is greater whereas in relation to a Gift-deed it is simply value of the property. There is a marked difference in the “market value of the property” and the “value of the property” as used in the above Articles and this distinction is acceptable to the learned Standing Counsel. 12. I myself in Sumit Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 712 , have considered the above distinction in the use of the expression “market value of the property” and the “value of the property” as used in the above Articles and has held that in relation to a deed of gift it is not necessary to determine the market value and the value as given by the person making the gift is sufficient. However, it does not mean that the person making the gift can suppress the true value of the property and give an illusory value so as to avoid payment of requisite stamp duty. 13. To avoid illusory valuation and to ensure that the value of the property disclosed is just, fair and reasonable, The Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 framed in exercise of power under Sections 27, 47-A and 75 of the Act vide Rule 5 lays down the method of calculation of minimum value of land and building both commercial and non-commercial. It provides that value of the building which is non-commercial is to be determined by taking the minimum value of the land whether covered by the construction or not but which forms part of the instrument plus the value of the construction arrived at by multiplying the constructed area of each floor of the building by the minimum value fixed by the Collector of the district under Rule 4 of the Rules. The relevant part of Rule 5 is reproduced herein below: 14. A plain reading of the above rules reveals that it envisages to determine the minimum value of the property i.e. land as well as the building. It does not purports to determine the market value though the value determined therein may be imported for the determination of the value also. 15. Learned counsel for the parties are unanimous in opinion that the value of the property in question which is a building ought to have been determined by applying the aforesaid rule but the said method has not been followed. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned are unsustainable in law. 16. This apart, the grievance is also that the reports of the technical committee were not supplied to the petitioner in time to enable him to object to it in a proper manner. 17. I need not, however, go into above aspect as the petition can be disposed of on the short point that the method prescribed for valuing the building as provided under Rule 5(c)(i) of the Rules was not followed and, as such, requires re-determination. 18. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 4.12.2009 and dated 11.5.2011 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Collector for re-determination of the value of the property involved in the above gift in accordance with law as per Rule 5 of the Rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 19. 19. The amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders would abide by the fresh decision to be taken pursuant to this order and in case any amount is found to have been deposited in excess the same shall be refunded within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order and in the event of delay the petitioner would be entitle to interest at the rate of 8% p.a. for the delayed period. ——————