JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. Heard Mr. Devendar Mohan Shukla, learned counsel State counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Mr. Ramji Das and Mr. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. 2. In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite party No. 1 stand dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.2.2005 passed under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereby appeal preferred by opposite party No. 2 against assessment under Section 47 A of the Act was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that with regard to property in question, an instrument of sale dated 20.12.2003 was presented for registration in which apart from the immoveable property, various trees were also indicated and the property itself was in the nature of a grove. It is further submitted that although there was no dispute with regard to stamp duty paid on the immoveable property but deficient stamp duty was indicated with regard to trees situate on the property and therefore reference was made under Section 47A (3) of the Act and by means of order dated 3.1.2005, assessment of deficient stamp duty on such tree was indicated and penalty imposed alongwith interest. Appeal filed by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 56 was thereafter allowed by means of impugned order only on the basis of self assessment of opposite party No. 2. 5. Learned counsel submits that the order passed under Section 47A was in fact the correct assessment and was based on the circle rate issued on 4.8.2003 by the Collector whereas the impugned order places reliance on the subsequent circle rate issued on 16.6.2004, which was after the execution of instrument of transfer and as such it is submitted could not have found the basis of the appellate order since it was not retrospective in effect. It is further submitted that even otherwise, appeal has been allowed only on the basis of self-assessment of the opposite party No. 2 @ of Rs. 1.50 per tree which was incorrect since the circle rate dated 4.8.2003 was clearly applicable upon the instrument as per which the trees were required to be assessed @ Rs. 1000/- per unit for trees upto the age of 10 years whereafter assessment was required to be made @ Rs. 2000/- for trees upto the age of 20 years or more. 6. 1000/- per unit for trees upto the age of 10 years whereafter assessment was required to be made @ Rs. 2000/- for trees upto the age of 20 years or more. 6. As such, it is submitted that impugned order is bad on two counts that firstly, it places reliance on circle rate which was issued subsequent to execution of instrument of transfer and secondly that it is based only on self-assessment of opposite party No. 2. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of answering opposite party while refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to stamp duty payable on the immovable property and reference has been made only with regard to trees situate on the aforesaid immovable property which is subject-matter of instrument of transfer and calculation of minimum value of land, grove, garden and trees situated thereon is required to be made in terms of Rule 5(b) of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997) which prescribed the mode of assessment to revenue as the assessment as per Rule 5(a) of the Rules of 1997 plus the value of the trees standing thereon worked out on the basis of average price of the trees of similar nature prevailing in the locality on the date of execution of the instrument. As such, it is submitted that exempler was required to be taken into account by authorities for assessing stamp duty on the valuation of trees. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to Government Order dated 7.7.2000 brought on record as Annexure CA-1 to counter-affidavit to submit that the State Government itself has issued directions that reference should not be made with regard to dispute only pertaining to trees over immovable property and that appropriate market value of such trees is required to be self-assessed by the assessee. It is also submitted that the impugned order has not placed reliance on the circle rate issued on 16.6.2004 and it is in fact based on the self-assessment of the answering opposite party, which is in consonance with Government Order dated 7.7.2000 and as such no exception thereto can be taken. 8. It is also submitted that the impugned order has not placed reliance on the circle rate issued on 16.6.2004 and it is in fact based on the self-assessment of the answering opposite party, which is in consonance with Government Order dated 7.7.2000 and as such no exception thereto can be taken. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the short controversy involved is whether valuation of trees over immovable property which is subject-matter of instrument of transfer is required to be taken as per circle rate or as per the Rules of 1997 and whether the valuation as per circle rate can be said to be in consonance with the Rules? 9. Learned counsel for parties admit that the property in question was in the nature of a grove and there was no dispute with regard to stamp duty payable on the immovable portion of the property and reference was in fact made under Section 47A of the Act of 1899 only with regard to dispute of stamp duty pertaining to trees situate thereon. It is also submitted that the mode of calculation of stamp duty is clearly prescribed in Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. However, while learned State Counsel submits that the circle rate as notified on 4.8.2003 is in consonance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 disputes the same. 10. For proper appreciation of the controversy, it is necessary to evaluate the Rules of 1997, Rule 5(a) & (b) of the Rules which are as follows : (a) In case of land Minimum value Where agricultural or non-agricultural Area of land multiplied by minimum value fixed by Collector of the district under Rule 4. (b) In case of grove or garden- (i) if assessed to revenue Minimum value of the land as worked out in the manner laid down in Clause (a) plus the value of the trees standing thereon worked out on the basis of the average price of the trees of the same nature, size and age prevailing'' in the locality on the date of the instrument; (ii) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it and is rented. Twenty times the annual rent plus the premium, if any, plus the value of trees standing thereon determined in accordance with sub-clause (i); (iii) if not assessed to revenue or is exempted from it, and profit has arisen during three years immediately proceeding the date of the instrument. Twenty times the average annual profit plus the value of the trees standing thereon determined in accordance with sub-clause (i); (iv) if not assessed to revenue or exempted from it and no profit has arisen during the three years immediately proceeding the date of the instrument. Twenty times the assumed annual profit plus the value of the trees standing thereon determined in accordance with sub-clause (i). 11. From a perusal of aforesaid Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997, it is apparent that while determining stamp duty with regard to trees situate over immovable property, the value of trees is required to be worked out on the basis of exempler regarding average price of trees of the same nature, size and age prevailing in the locality on the date of the instrument. Therefore, it is evident that while determining stamp duty pertaining to trees situate in a grove etc., exemplers are to be adverted to by authority concerned while considering matter under Section 47A of the Act of 1899. 12. So far as the question whether circle rate as notified by the Collector of the District can be said to be in consonance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997 is concerned, it is evident from Circular dated 4.8.2003 that it only indicates the date with effect from it would be effected which is 4.8.2003 and there is no indication with regard to time period for which it would remain applicable. Although, subsequently another circle rate was issued on 16.6.2004 to be effective from 16.6.2004 itself but there again the time period of its operation is not indicated anywhere in the notification. 13. Upon consideration of provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997, it is evident that valuation is required to be taken with regard to exempler for similar trees in the locality on the date of instrument. 13. Upon consideration of provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997, it is evident that valuation is required to be taken with regard to exempler for similar trees in the locality on the date of instrument. A circle rate applied with effect from a particular date without any time period of its operation cannot be said to be in consonance with the provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997 since it could operate for a few months, years or even interminably and therefore it cannot be taken to be an exempler for all times to come and in the considered opinion of this Court would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. 14. Learned State Counsel has adverted to Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1997 to submit that such circle rates are required to be issued every two years and, therefore, the said circle rates would be applicable only for a period of two years and not beyond. It has been informed that subsequently by means of an amendment, the operation of circle rates has been made applicable only for a period of one year. Nonetheless, the practical aspect of aforesaid circle rates also can be discounted in terms of specific statutory provisions under Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997 which specifically provide for exemplers in the same locality as on the date of execution of instrument. The practical aspect which is required to be considered is that prices of trees situated on an immovable property may differ from time to time and price as in one year may not be the same in another year or even in other months of the same year. As such, Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997 clearly indicate that exempler is to be taken with regard to date of execution of a document. The primary purpose of insertion of such a condition in the Rules would take into account the changes in prices of similar trees in the same locality from time to time. As such, a single circle rates for all the localities in a particular district for a specified time period cannot be taken to be an exempler and would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be contrary to the provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. 15. As such, a single circle rates for all the localities in a particular district for a specified time period cannot be taken to be an exempler and would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be contrary to the provisions of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. 15. In the present case, it is evident that the order passed under Section 47A of the Act of 1899 is clearly based on the circle rates notified on 4.8.2003. No exempler whatsoever has been indicated in the aforesaid order in terms of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. The appellate authority as well while noticing the subsequent notification of circle rates on 16.6.2004 has thereafter indicated calculation of stamp duty as per self-assessment of opposite party No. 2. Such an assessment appears to be in consonance with Government Order dated 7.7.2000. It is clear that in neither of the two orders has any adherence been made to Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997. However, in view of fact that seventeen years have passed, this Court does not see any occasion to remand the matter for consideration afresh since after passing of so many years, exemplers may not be available for fresh adjudication of the matter particularly when the impugned order appears to be passed in terms of Government Order dated 7.7.2000 which predates the instrument of transfer and appears to be applicable as on the date of execution of instrument of transfer. 16. The aforesaid Government Order dated 7.7.2000 has been brought on record alongwith the counter-affidavit and clearly provides that stamp duty is being levied at different rates in different District therefore to obviate this problem, it had been decided that the valuation indicated by the assessee regarding such fees as per self-assessment should be taken as the actual valuation and such matter should not be referred to the Collector indicating any deficiency in stamp duty particularly since there is no great effect on revenue generated by such deficiency. 17. In view of the fact that although the assessment by either of the authorities is not in consonance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1997 but since the appellate order appears to be in consonance with Government Order dated 7.7.2000, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 18. The writ petition as such being devoid of merit is dismissed. 18. The writ petition as such being devoid of merit is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.