JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) assessing market value at higher rate and demanding additional stamp duty and penalty; and revisional order dated 18.05.1996 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, partly allowing Revision and modifying Collector's order by providing that instead of Rs. 4/-per square feet applied by Collector, the rate should be Rs. 3/- per square feet. 3. It is contended that neither Collector's order nor revisional order are based on any material and both are conjectural and based on surmises. It is also submitted that Additional District Magistrate made an inquiry and submitted report in favour of petitioner but that has been discarded without giving any cogent reason. 4. Collector has rejected Additional District Magistrate's report on the ground that the aforesaid report shows that market value of disputed property is lesser than that determined by Collector as minimum of valuation and similarly the said report has also been rejected by Revisional Authority by observing that it is a tainted report. 5. I find that Revisional Authority has also proceeded on conjecture that one can hardly negotiate a single room for Rs. 100/- in the centre of a commercial area, but no material has been placed on record to substantiate that market value determined by Collector by examining a particular location can be applied harmoniously to all the properties in that area. 6. In order to attract Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") Collector has to examine whether market value, whether truly set forth or not. In Kaka Singh Vs. Additional Collector & District Magistrate (F & R), (1986) AIR Allahabad 107 this Court said: "The word 'truly' would empower the Collector to examine whether the market value stated in the document is not in conformity with the fact. In Kaka Singh Vs. Additional Collector & District Magistrate (F & R), (1986) AIR Allahabad 107 this Court said: "The word 'truly' would empower the Collector to examine whether the market value stated in the document is not in conformity with the fact. If a party has agreed to pay more and mentions less in the conveyance of which one of the purposes could be evasion of stamp duty, the Collector would be entitled to find the real value for which the property had been sold in that case and after determining the correct value for which the property has been sold, to make a demand of the difference of the amount of duty payable as such." 7. This Court also relied on a Madras High Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.N. Chandrasekharan, (1974) AIR Madras 117 wherein it was held that object of the Act is to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty. It is not meant to be applied in a matter of fact fashion and in a haphazard way. Market value is a changing factor and will depend on various circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. No exactitude is in the nature of things possible. In working the Act, great caution should be taken in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression. Normally the consideration stated as the market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exist which suggest fraudulent evasion. 8. This Court in Kaka Singh Vs. Additional Collector & District Magistrate (supra) further said that under Section 47-A, Collector has power to determine whether a particular document which is presented for registration is undervalued with a view to evade payment of stamp duty. In this regard, he may take help of minimum rate prescribed with reference to Rule 341 but that is not conclusive or determinative of the controversy. Court further said: "16. It is true that since there can be no direct evidence of clandestine dealings, a finding about evasion can be given by considering the circumstances. It may further be stated that determination of undervaluation has to be made with reference to the particular transaction presented for registration. Court further said: "16. It is true that since there can be no direct evidence of clandestine dealings, a finding about evasion can be given by considering the circumstances. It may further be stated that determination of undervaluation has to be made with reference to the particular transaction presented for registration. If otherwise a document sets forth the amount or consideration truly, the Collector will have no power to hold it to have been undervalued on the prevalent market value. As there may be cases, the sale may take place for a lesser amount than what is the value of a similarly situated property. Selling a property at a price lower than the market value, is against human behaviour and can be considered as a ground for evasion. But this fact should not be made conclusive and should be judged along with others. No individual factor in such a matter is conclusive. The job of determination is difficult but not impossible of performance. Truth can be found despite these odds. It is not possible for us to lay down exhaustively as to in which cases evasion could be found and in which it could not be." 18. ... Market value by its nature is such which keeps on varying and changing. For the purpose of determining duty it is the date on which a document is executed that is to be taken into account. The market value has to be determined with reference to that date." 9. In Vijay Kumar and another Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division and another, (2008) AIR Allahabad 176, a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.) relied on Supreme Court's decision in Mahabir Prasad Santuka and others Vs. Collector, Cuttack and others, (1987) 1 SCC 587 , said that 'market value' means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and development activities which may be going in the vicinity and potentiality of the land and as such. An offer of sale of land to an industrialist on concessional rate with a view to induce him to set up industry in a particular area is not market value. 10. In Smt. Prakashwati Vs. An offer of sale of land to an industrialist on concessional rate with a view to induce him to set up industry in a particular area is not market value. 10. In Smt. Prakashwati Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others, (1996) 87 RevDec 419, Court said that situation of a property in an area close to a decent colony not by itself would make it part thereof and should not be a factor for approach of the authority in determining the market value. According to said decision valuation has to be determined on constructive 'materials, which could be made available before the authorities concerned. 11. This Court in Ratna Shanker Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 116 RevDec 17c, on the question what a 'market value' is, said as under: "14. The term "market value" has not been defined under the Act. However there are some precedents laying down certain guidelines as to how and in what manner a market value would be determined. The consensus opinion is that the market value of any property is the price which the property would fetch or would have fetched if sold, in the open market, if sold by a willing seller, unaffected by the special need of a particular purchaser. It is interesting to note that the Act provides first for determination of minimum value of the property and further says that if the market value of the property set forth in the instrument is less than the minimum value determined under the Act, in such case before registering the instrument the registering authority shall refer the instrument to Collector for determination of market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon and when the Collector determines market value of the property thereafter the parties shall proceed accordingly. Therefore, a market value of the property in all cases cannot be said to be higher than the alleged minimum value determined under the rule by the concerned authority, inasmuch as, it is only a kind of guideline provided to the authorities for the purpose of considering as to whether the proper stamp duty is being paid by setting forth true market value of the property in question in the instrument. The various provision with respect to minimum value etc. The various provision with respect to minimum value etc. are only in aid and assistance of the authorities to find out true amount of consideration on which the parties have entered into transaction so that the correct duty is collected therefrom." 12. It has also been repeatedly held that once a document is registered and stamp duty is paid, burden to prove that the value mentioned in the instrument was less than the market value is upon Collector. 13. In the present case, Collector has relied on its own rates fixed, i.e., circle rate, but this Court has also held that circle rate is only an aid and guide for the registering officer and is not determinative of market value. In taking this view, I am fortified by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 9 ADJ 503 . 14. In view of above discussion, it is evident that orders impugned in the present writ petition instead of determining market value have relied on circle rate and, hence, cannot be sustained. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 05.07.1994 and 18.05.1996 are hereby set aside.