JUDGMENT : Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. Heard Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praful Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide conveyance deed dated 05.11.1998 all assets including Solvent Extraction Plant of M/s Garg India Limited "The Holding Company", a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 including the land, buildings and sheds standing thereon with Plant & Machinery etc. were transferred to the petitioner, M/S Indo Prosoya Foods Limited, i.e. "The Subsidiary Company." The said conveyance deed contained the description of the boundaries of transferred property, however, inadvertently one plot of land comprising Plot No. 620, 621, 622, 623, and 624 situated outside the boundary wall of the Machinery and Solvent Extraction Plant was left to be mentioned in the deed of transfer. Hence, vide registered sale deed dated 05.08.2002 this plot was transferred by M/s Garg India Limited in favour of petitioner- M/s. Indo Prosoya Foods Limited. It is contended that this land was being used for the agricultural purpose by the Company and there was no construction over the said land, therefore, the stamp duty was paid according to the prescribed rates for agricultural land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure No.- 11 to the writ petition, which is an application for electricity connection dated 19.02.2003 i.e. after the execution of the sale deed thereafter vide Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, the licence was granted to the petitioner on 02.06.2003 for setting up a second unit of Solvent Extraction Plant and on 25.07.2005 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section- 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1899') to which objection was submitted by the petitioner. Upon the objection filed by the petitioner a report was called upon by the Tehsildar Sadar, Unnao and Sub Registrar, Unnao vide Annexure No. 6. The Tehsildar submitted its report dated 25.11.2005 stating that the land in question was being used for industrial purposes along with the machines and residential colony of employees. He submits that the total area of the land is 3969 square meters accordingly the valuation as per circle rate comes Rs. 9,13,100/-. Thereafter the opposite party no. The Tehsildar submitted its report dated 25.11.2005 stating that the land in question was being used for industrial purposes along with the machines and residential colony of employees. He submits that the total area of the land is 3969 square meters accordingly the valuation as per circle rate comes Rs. 9,13,100/-. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 sought a report vide his order dated 27.05.2006 contained Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition from the Tehsildar indicating as to whether the construction was situated on the land in question at the time of execution of the instrument i.e. sale deed dated 05.08.2002 which is the requirement under Section- 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899. The Tehsildar, Sadar, Unnao vide Annexure No. 8 dated 06.07.2006 submitted that he is not technically qualified to evaluate the period of construction. 4. On the other hand, vide his report dated 06.07.2006 Sub-Registrar, Unnao submitted his report which is contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition wherein he has observed that the value of the land as Rs. 9,16,492.50. About 664.75 square meters was calculated as covered area and the assessed stamp duty payable by the petitioner as Rs. 17,86,800/- hence he assessed a deficiency of Rs. 17,61,800/-. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules- 1997 (herein referred to as ''Rules, 1997') has also brought to the notice of this Court. 5. Rule-7(3) of the said Rules, 1997 provides that the Collector may ask any information or record from any public office or officers or authority under the Government or local authority for deciding a reference or for taking suo-motu given under Section- 47A of the Act. Since the Tehsildar had expressed his inability to submit the report regarding the age of the construction and whether that construction was existing on the land in question at the time of the execution of instrument, therefore, vide letter dated 28.05.2008 a report from District Industries Center was sought by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp). The report of General Manager, District Industries Center dated 18.04.2009 is contained in Annexure No. 14 to this writ petition wherein it has been clarified that the land was transferred in the year 2002 and at that time neither any machinery was installed over the said land nor any industrial activity was being carried out on the said land, therefore, there was no occasion for valuation of the machinery. 6. Another report was called from the U.P. Public Works Department regarding valuation of the construction which is contained as Annexure No. 15 to this writ petition dated 06.06.2008. It appears that the aforesaid report dated 06.06.2008 called from U.P. Public Works Department as it is the body which is technically competent to give such report. Vide Annexure No. 16, it appears that Executive Engineer, Public Works Department vide his letter dated 22.04.2009 demanded certain documents from the opposite party no. 2 vide Annexure No. 17 to this writ petition. The opposite party no. 2 only provided a copy of the sale deed but failed to provide other documents to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Unnao. The other relevant documents sought by P.W.D. as contained Annexure No. 16 were not supplied by the opposite party no. 2, therefore, since 06.06.2008 the matter was being adjourned for want of necessary documents the Public Works Department was not able to submit the report, ultimately no report was submitted by the Public Works Department. Thereafter, impugned order has been passed against the petitioner in absence of the report of the Public Works Department and without considering the fact that nature of the land has not been changed under Section- 143 U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act at the time of the execution of the instrument/sale deed, the report of the Tehsildar Sadar, Unnao and the report of District Industries Center, Unnao has not been considered the documents regarding electricity connection on the said land and the bill as invoices showing purchase of building material by the petitioner for construction after the execution of the sale deed has also not been considered. It has been argued that the impugned order passed by the opposite party is without jurisdiction as a power under Section-47 of the Indian Stamp Act can be exercised only in the manner prescribed under the statute. The opposite party no. 2 has completely failed to adhere the requirement of the statute and in pre-mediated manner the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the counsel for the petitioner as he could not make himself available in anticipation that the matter would again be adjourned for want of report from the Public Works Department which was being awaited from the previous several dates, no notification under Section-143 U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been issued for change in land. The best authority/public office to give a report was District Industries Center who vide his report dated 18.04.2009 has certified that at the time of execution of the sale deed in the year 2002, no construction was existing on the plot in question. 7. Lastly, it has been contended that while passing the impugned order, the opposite party no. 2 has neither agreed with the audit objection of the Accountant General filed nor has agreed with the report of Sub Registrar who opined that the valuation of the land should be done treating it as commercial rather substituted it own finding and treated it as an industrial property without any evidence in support of that. 8. Sri Praful Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and has supported the impugned orders contained in the writ petition. 9. The State Government framed the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules-1997 whereby it empowered the Collector under Rule- 7 (3) (a) to seek any information or record from any public office or officer or authority under Government or a legal authority for his satisfaction in this case. 10. It appears that the Collector initially for such purpose had called for the report of Tehsildar who submitted two reports, after submission of the first report dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure 6), specific report was sought from him, which he has submitted a report dated 06.07.2006 which is contained as Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition stating that he is technically not qualified to valuate the period of construction. Record further reveals that Sub-Registrar, Unnao vide Annexure No. 9 has submitted his report dated 06.07.2006 and vide Annexure No.-14, General Manager, District Industries Center has also submitted his report dated 18.04.2009 certifying that the land was transferred in the year 2002 and at that time neither any machinery was installed over the said land nor any construction being carried out in the said land, therefore, no occasion for valuation of the machinery. District Industries Center is a public authority and it provided license to the petitioner for setting up the industry. The report called from U.P. Public Works Department is also relevant as the U.P. Public Works Department is a technical body to ascertain the age of the construction while passing the impugned order the opposite party no. 2 ignored the report of District Industries Center who is a licensing authority. The report called from U.P. Public Works Department is also relevant as the U.P. Public Works Department is a technical body to ascertain the age of the construction while passing the impugned order the opposite party no. 2 ignored the report of District Industries Center who is a licensing authority. The impugned order has been passed in absence of the report of P.W.D. which is a technical body. Impugned order further appears to have been passed ignoring the fact that vide letter/report dated 06.07.2006 contained in Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, the Tehsildar Sadar, Unnao clearly expressed his inability on the ground that he is technically unqualified to valuate the period of construction and, therefore, the report from the P.W.D. was called upon which has not been submitted due to the fact that necessary documents were not sent to the Public Works Department by the Collector. The impugned order appears to have been passed on the basis of audit objection raised by the team of Accountant General in which the land has been stated to be residential, and the report of Sub-Registrar while passing the impugned order the opposite party no. 2 has partially agreed with the aforesaid two reports. 11. The Sub-Registrar has treated the land of the petitioner to be commercial and the audit team has stated the land to be residential. The opposite party no. 2 had not agreed with both the reports and as without assigning any reason has given his own finding that property is industrial and has passed the impugned order partially relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar and audit team of Accountant General. 12. This Court in Vijay Kumar & Anr. Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr., (2008) 5 AllLJ 261 has held that report of Sub-Registrar or Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to pass an order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. The relevant paragraphs 16 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment are produced herein under:- "16. The sole basis of the impugned orders holding that proper stamp duty has not been paid by the petitioners is the report of the Sub Registrar, reporting the matter to the ADM (F&R) that proper stamp duty has not been paid. The relevant paragraphs 16 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment are produced herein under:- "16. The sole basis of the impugned orders holding that proper stamp duty has not been paid by the petitioners is the report of the Sub Registrar, reporting the matter to the ADM (F&R) that proper stamp duty has not been paid. Except the said report, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners by arrangement deliberately under valued the property while setting forth the market value in the instrument. 20. There is another aspect of the case. The sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Act is that the Collector has reason to believe that the stamp duty has not been properly set forth in the instrument as per market value of the property. Once the instrument is registered and the prescribed stamp duty as prescribed by the Collector has been paid, the burden to prove that the market value is more than the minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the rules, is upon the Collector. The report of the Sub Register or Tahsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden. Reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kala Singh v. The Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Bulandshahr and another, (1986) AllLJ 49." 13. In view of the above, since the impugned order has been passed partially agreeing with the report of Sub-Registrar and audit team and even the opposite party no. 2 has not fully agreed with these reports, has passed the impugned order without there being any report from the Public Works Department and has rejected the report of District Industries Center. Further no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner while passing the said order and lastly impugned order passed by the opposite party no. 2 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case Vijay Kumar (Supra). 14. I am of the view that the opposite party no. 2 has failed to prove the burden that the market value of the property in question is more. The opposite party no. 2 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case Vijay Kumar (Supra). 14. I am of the view that the opposite party no. 2 has failed to prove the burden that the market value of the property in question is more. The opposite party no. 2 only on the basis of the report of Sub-Registrar and audit team without other material as stated above could not have discharged that burden of proof of the market value of the property at the time of execution of the instrument. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the opposite party contained in Annexure No. 1 cannot be sustained accordingly is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 15. The opposite party no. 2 is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Since at the time of admission of the writ petition this Court vide order dated 05.08.2010 directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3 amount as demanded in the recovery citation and in compliance of that learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said amount has been deposited. 16. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to refund the amount thus deposited by the petitioner along with 6% rate of interest within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.