JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 21.8.12 of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby a revision petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 24.12.10 of the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner, has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the second respondent Prakash Chandra as power of attorney holder of Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Ranjana and Kamal Singh, sold a property i.e. two storey building constructed on the land measuring 489.5 sq. ft. with the built up area 806 sq. ft. situated at Rani Bazar, Bikaner, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- to Shri Rakesh Kumar, the first respondent herein. The sale deed was presented before the Deputy Registrar, Bikaner for registration. The Deputy Registrar while assessing the market value of the property at Rs. 1,47,850/- made a reference to the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner under Section 47 A (i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1888, as adapted by the State of Rajasthan, for determination of deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty. The Collector (Stamp) arrived at the finding that the market value of the property as disclosed in the sale deed is just and proper and accordingly, rejected the reference. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 6.7.99 and the matter was remanded to the Collector (Stamp) to pass the order afresh after issuing notice to the seller and making an inquiry in accordance with law. The Collector (Stamp) while passing the order afresh assessed the market value of the property subject matter of the instrument at Rs. 1,97,850/- and accordingly, created the demand for deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which was allowed vide order dated 7.7.10. The Tax Board while setting aside the order dated 30.10.99 passed by the Collector (Stamp), again remanded the matter to the Collector (Stamp) for determination of the market value of the property taking into consideration the year of construction of building and the factum of letting out of the premises while keeping in view the circular dated 24.12.01 issued by the Inspector General, Registration and Stamp, Government of Rajasthan. After the remand, the Collector (Stamp) assessed the market value of the property at Rs. After the remand, the Collector (Stamp) assessed the market value of the property at Rs. 90,070/- and accordingly, created the demand for deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty quantified at Rs. 9,200/-. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no provision under the law for assessment of the market value of the rented property on different yardstick and thus, the Collector (Stamp) has seriously erred in assessing the value of the land subject matter of instrument @ 30% of prevalent DLC rate. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property and therefore, it was not open for the Collector (Stamp) to assess the market value less than actual market value, merely on the ground that the property was already in possession of the purchaser as tenant. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, the stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property subject matter of conveyance. Obviously, the market value of the property contemplated under the provisions of the Act is actual market value of the property as on the date of transaction and therefore, even the DLC rate which is taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the property cannot be treated to be conclusive. It is not in dispute that the premises which has been sold by the second respondent to the first respondent was already occupied by him as tenant. This fact cannot be ignored that the properties which are in occupation of the tenant do not fetch the actual market price and for this reason, the State Government has also issued a circular dated 24.12.01 relied upon by the Tax Board providing that the premises which are in occupation of the tenant during the period from 26.1.50 to 31.12.83, the value thereof should be determined at the rate of 30% of the reserved price and therefore, while following the directions of the State Government, the Collector (Stamp) has committed no error in determining the value of the land covered by the building in conformity with the circular issued by the State Government. It is pertinent to note that while assessing the cost of the construction raised, the Collector (Stamp) has assessed the cost of the construction @ 63.39% of the actual cost of construction prevalent at the relevant time and not @ 30% as contemplated under circular dated 24.12.01 issued by the State Government. 6. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court the order passed by the Collector (Stamp) assessing the market value of the property subject matter of instrument in question, taking into consideration the fact that the property was in occupation of the tenant, cannot be faulted with and thus, the Tax Board has committed no error in declining to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Stamp). 7. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.