JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2003 passed by the Collector, Sitapur in Stamp Case No. 15 under Section 47A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act and also the order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 114 of 2002-03 under Section 56 of the Stamp Act imposing recovery on the basis of deficiency in stamp duty and penalty upon the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a plot with area 1380 Square Feet which had two rooms, one Verandah, one kitchen and bathroom constructed on it with covered area of 435 Square Feet situated in Mohalla-Civil Lines, District-Sitapur through registered sale deed on 11.07.2002. Stamp duty was paid as per the Circle Rate List issued by the Collector at the time of the execution of the sale deed to the tune of Rs.43,200/- upon total valuation of Rs.4,31,737/-. The petitioner specifically mentioned in the sale deed the area which was covered by construction and the area which was lying open as plot appurtenant to it. Subsequently, on the basis of a report dated 04.12.2002 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Sitapur proceeding under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act was initiated, the Collector issued notice to the petitioner on 07.03.2003, the petitioner having come to know filed an application before the Collector for an spot inspection of the property in question as the earlier inspection had been carried out ex parte and the report clearly stated that no one was found and the house was found locked at the time of inspection. Such application remained pending. The petitioner was not residing in the house, she had bought as she was residing with her parents in Mohalla Rani Kothi, Buts Ganj, Sitapur. 4. After the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 04.12.2002, another report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Sitapur on 05.05.2003 which was also ex parte as the house was found locked even at that time and measurement of covered area could not be carried out either by the Sub-Registrar or by the Naib Tehsildar. Based on such ex parte reports the Collector passed the order dated 02.08.2003 determining deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 6,850/- and also imposing maximum penalty which was four times of such deficiency amounting to Rs. Based on such ex parte reports the Collector passed the order dated 02.08.2003 determining deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 6,850/- and also imposing maximum penalty which was four times of such deficiency amounting to Rs. 27,400 plus interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision under Section 56 wherein a specific ground was taken that the inspection was carried out ex parte and behind her back, however, the Additional Commissioner passed the order on 03.09.2003 directing the petitioner to deposit at least one third of the amount. The petitioner deposited Rs.11,897/- on 10.09.2003. On 05.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner passed an interim order staying rest of the recovery till disposal of the revision. The Revision was disposed of on 09.05.2005 by observing that at least two inspections were carried out of the property in question, one by the Sub-Registrar and other by the Naib Tehsildar. It was however not appreciated that both the inspections were ex parte and it was specifically mentioned in such report that house was found locked, therefore, no measurement of covered area could be done by the officer inspecting the property in question. The report was based on conjectures and surmises and it ought to have been rejected, however, the Additional Commissioner based his order rejected the Revision only on such report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 7 (3)(C) of the U. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, wherein the Collector is supposed to inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument and then determine the market value. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 6 of his petition, wherein he has mentioned this fact that no inspection was carried out in the presence of the petitioner. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 8 has stated that two inspections were carried out one by the Sub-Registrar on 04.12.2002 and the other by the Naib Tehsildar on 05.05.2003, but house was found locked and from inspection of its from the outside it appeared to the officers that the house was fully covered which was not mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner having been issued notice in the stamp case and having filed her application should have also submitted documentary evidence including photographs to show that the entire plot was not covered by construction to substantiate her claim. This was not done by the petitioner. 8. This Court has perused the orders impugned. Both orders are based on spot inspection having been carried by the Sub-Registrar and the Naib Tehsildar, but such inspections had found the house to be locked therefore no measurement of covered area could be done. Just by making an estimate from looking at the house from the outside both the Sub-Registrar and the Naib Tehsildar had guessed that the plot may have been fully covered by construction which was not mentioned in the sale deed, and therefore, deficiency in stamp as well as penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. 9. This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P., 2005 (98) RD 511 has considered Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the responsibility of the Collector as mentioned in the U. P. Stamp Rules, 1997. After considering Rule 4, 5 and 7 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1997, the Court observed that it was the responsibility of the Collector to issue notice to the affected party and he may admit oral and documentary evidence if produced by the party to the instrument, and after conducting inquiry which including on the spot inspection in the presence of the parties determine deficiency in stamp duty, if any. The Court observed on the basis of earlier judgements rendered by this Court that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty was an ex parte report of the Tehsildar. Ex parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, however, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed on such ex parte report. After initiation of the stamp case, inspection is to be made by the Collector or the Authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule 7 (3)(C) of the Rules, 1997. Moreover, in the said inspection report, if possible, a sketch map should also be included. 10. After initiation of the stamp case, inspection is to be made by the Collector or the Authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule 7 (3)(C) of the Rules, 1997. Moreover, in the said inspection report, if possible, a sketch map should also be included. 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Other 2009 (27) LCD 1335 has observed, while placing reliance upon Ram Khilawan (Supra), in paragraph 13 as follows:- "13. The Uttar Pradesh Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997 particularly Rule 7 provides the procedure on receipt of a reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The Rule 7(2) (c) provides that the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to parties to the instrument. The complete reading of the aforesaid rule clearly indicates that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act the Collector or its authority are required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The proceeding under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex parte report of the Tehsildar or any authority for that purpose. In the present case the Tehsildar's report dated 03.05.2001 does not disclose as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner before inspection of the land in question by the Tehsildar. Rather it clearly shows that it was an ex parte report. Hence the order dated 26.07.2001 was passed in violation of Rule 7(2) (c) of the U.P. Stamp Valuation of Property Rule, 1997." 11. In view of the law settled by this Court, it is incumbent upon the Collector while conducting the inquiry on initiation of a stamp case under Section 47A, to inspect the property in question in the presence of the parties and to consider their representation, if any, and then pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking order. 12. In view of the law settled by this Court, it is incumbent upon the Collector while conducting the inquiry on initiation of a stamp case under Section 47A, to inspect the property in question in the presence of the parties and to consider their representation, if any, and then pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking order. 12. In the case at hand, this Court has perused the orders impugned and finds that both the Collector and the Additional Commissioner had placed reliance upon ex parte reports, which ex parte reports also do not mention in detail anything about the property, they only said that the house was found locked and from looking at it from the outside, it seemed that it was fully constructed. 13. The orders impugned are set aside. If any amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders impugned, the same shall be refunded to her within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the opposite party no.3. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.