JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. I.A. No.13 of 2025 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for recall of the order dated 20.8.2025. 3. Reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient. 4. Accordingly, this application is allowed . Order dated 20.8.2025 is recalled. 5. Resultantly, the writ petition is restored to its original number. On Writ Petition:- 1. Heard Shri Abhisht Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satrughun Chaduhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 7.3.1995 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 18.9.1994 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Unnao whereby the deficiency in stamp duty has been raised against the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural plot of land Khasra No.117/M area 0-4-0 situated at Village Kure Mau, Pargana Asiwan, Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao and adjacent to the land purchased bearing Khasra Plot Nos.40,116 and 26 are belonging to the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner in regard to deficiency in stamp duty on 18.3.1994 levelling deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.8745/-. A report was called for from the Tehsildar bu the Tehsildar did not submit any inspection report in regard to Plot No.117/M and relying on the report of the Lekhpal, the report was rejected and proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner is of agricultural purpose and adjacent to the land bearing Khasra No.117, there are other land connected to the petitioner, therefore the Lekhpal correctly submitted report in regard to the stamp duty to be levelled against the petitioner. Due to the non-consideration of the report of the Lekhpal, Additional Collector would have called for fresh report from the Tehsildar, Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector but the same was not done which vitiates the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that act and action in levelling deficiency in stamp duty is wholly illegal and void ab initio. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that act and action in levelling deficiency in stamp duty is wholly illegal and void ab initio. 6. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revenue authority would have called for the inspection report and then proceeded to level the deficiency in stamp duty and in absence of any report, the order impugned orders vitiate in law and are liable to be set aside. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments. "(i) Kaka Singh v. The Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue ), Buland Shahr reported in 1986 ALL.L. Pg. 49 (ii) Rakesh Chandra Mittal and others v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr. Reported in AIR 2004 Alld. 302. (iii) Girijesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. reported in 1998 ALL. L.J. 1604: AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 237." (iv) Smt. Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. reported in 1996 Latest Case Law 527 SC. 8. On the other hand, Shri Satrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that Khatauni is the relevant document which determines the levying of stamp duty and in its deficiency thereon. He further submits that once there are amendment in the Section 340 of the Stamps Rules that in case land in question is to be short by 5 bishwas, then the stamp duty was caused on commercial rate and in case it comes in the town area the rate shall be fixed in accordance with law. 9. In support of his submission, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Agra through its Director v. Chief Conrolling Revenue Authority, U.P. At Allahabad and others reported in 2014 (124) RD 316. 10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record. 11. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, operative portion of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted here-in-below: (i) Kaka Singh (supra):- 14. S. 47-A fills in the lacuna which was found by the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co. 11. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, operative portion of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted here-in-below: (i) Kaka Singh (supra):- 14. S. 47-A fills in the lacuna which was found by the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ( (1972) 1 SCC 726 : AIR 1972 SC 899 ) (supra), it empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not correct that the Collector is not empowered to determine on a case being referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under S. 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by R. 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value truly or not. Similarly, the hands and power of the Collector are not confined to the minimum, value given in R. 341. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect. R. 341 had been framed by the legislature only for the limited purpose of providing a guideline. It is not conclusive. That being so, under sub-sec. (1) of S. 47-A, if the Registering Officer is satisfied that the market value is less than even the minimum value, he may refer the document to the Collector for determination of the value of such property. This is the only function of R. 341. It is neither binding on the person who produces the instrument for registration nor on the State Government. 15. Under S. 47-A, the Collector has the power to determine, whether a particular document which is presented for registration is undervalued with a view to evade payment of stamp duty. For this purpose, he would be entitled to take into account the minimum prescribed by R. 341 as a circumstance. But the minimum laid down in the Rule is not conclusive or determinative of the controversy. However, as stated above, this can be a circumstance which can be considered along with others. 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. But the minimum laid down in the Rule is not conclusive or determinative of the controversy. However, as stated above, this can be a circumstance which can be considered along with others. 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. 17. We find force also in the argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that since S. 47A does not empower the Collector to impose penalty in the event of his finding that the market value was not truly set forth in the instrument, such an order imposing the same would be beyond S. 47-A. For imposing penalty in a case like the present, power was specifically to be conferred. In the absence of a specific provision made in that respect, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the Standing Counsel that penalty could be imposed whenever and wherever the Collector under S. 47-A finds that the value set forth was not true. S. 47-A as stated above, was brought in recently to cover a case of evasion. While enacting S. 47-A, the legislature although empowered the Collector to determine the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance and the duty payable thereon, it did not make any provision empowering the Collector to impose penalty. 18. S. 47-A as stated above, was brought in recently to cover a case of evasion. While enacting S. 47-A, the legislature although empowered the Collector to determine the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance and the duty payable thereon, it did not make any provision empowering the Collector to impose penalty. 18. For what we have said above, we find that R. 341 is not ultra vires being only meant for a limited purpose of providing guideline. It carries out the purpose of S. 47-A of the Act. 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. In the instant case, we find that treating the method of calculation given in R. 341 as conclusive and final, the Collector found the market value narrated in the sale deeds not to be truthful. This makes the order and judgment of the Collector to be erroneous. It suffers from vice of mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Additional Collector also has committed the error of imposing penalty in the instant case. In these circumstances the order of the Collector is set aside and the case is sent back to him for a fresh determination of the controversy. (ii) Rakesh Chandra Mittal and others (supra):- 13. Coming to the second question regarding imposition of penalty, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 437 : (1998 All LJ 1604) has held that the Collector has no power to impose penalty. (iii) Girijesh Kumar Srivastava (supra):- There is no dispute from either side that the starting point of limitation is the date of registration of the instrument and the period of limitation is four years. According to learned Chief Standing Counsel if a reference from any Court or Commissioner of Stamps or Addl. Commissioner of Stamps or a Dy. Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf is made within four years from the date of registration of the instrument, whether any action is taken by the Collector or not, the proceedings would be within limitation. Commissioner of Stamps or a Dy. Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf is made within four years from the date of registration of the instrument, whether any action is taken by the Collector or not, the proceedings would be within limitation. Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants has, on the other hand, contended that the limitation of four years is for the Collector to initiate action and the date on which a reference is made by a Court or authorities enumerated in the opening part of sub-section (4) of S. 47-A is irrelevant. The question which arises for consideration is whether the period of four years qualifies the action of the Collector or the making of reference. Under sub- section (1) of S. 47-A the registering officer is required to make a reference to Collector before registering the instrument, while under sub-section (2) a discretion has been given to him to register the instrument and then make a reference to the Collector for determination of market value. In normal course of events this reference would be made immediately after registering the instrument and, therefore, the enquiry under sub-section (3) is likely to commence soon as the person in whose favour the instrument has been executed would forthwith come to know about the reference and would be interested to get the matter concluded. In the first case the instrumenl would remain unregistered and in the second case he will not get back the instrument after registration on account of it having been referred to the Collector. Therefore, in cases covered by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) at least the factum of reference would be immediately known to the person in whose favour instrument has been executed and he is bound to take all proceedings expeditiously in order to secure his title or get the benefits of the instrument. Under sub-section (4) power has been conferred on the Collector to call for and examine the instrument after it has been registered for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is subject of such instrument and the duty payable thereon. This action can be taken either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section. This action can be taken either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section. In our opinion, the language of the sub-section shows that the period of four years qualifies the action which may be taken by the Collector. If the interpretation suggested by learned Chief Standing Counsel was correct, the sub-section would have read like this; “ The Collector may, suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf made within four years from the date of registration of any instrument.” From the language in which the sub-section has been couched it is not possible to hold that the period of four years qualifies the reference. 11. It may be noticed that the language used in the opening part of sub-section (4) of S. 33 is exactly similar to the language used in the opening part of sub-section (4) of S. 47-A. The proviso to sub- section (5) of S. 33 says that no action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument. Here the bar of limitation applies to the action which may be taken by the Collector and not to a reference. There is no reason why similar interpretation should not be given to sub-section (4) of S. 47-A specially when both the sections namely S. 33 and S. 47-A find place in same Chapter IV of the STAMP ACT which deals with Instrument Not Duly Stamped. 12. It has been held by a Full Bench of Seven Judges of our Court in Mata Badal Pandey v. Board of Revenue, 1974 UPTC 570 that where there is some doubt or ambiguity in any provision in the authoritative English text, it is permissible to look into the Hindi text to remove the doubt or ambiguity. 12. It has been held by a Full Bench of Seven Judges of our Court in Mata Badal Pandey v. Board of Revenue, 1974 UPTC 570 that where there is some doubt or ambiguity in any provision in the authoritative English text, it is permissible to look into the Hindi text to remove the doubt or ambiguity. Sub-section (4) of S. 47-A as given in the Hindi version of the Act reads as follows: The Hindi version is quite clear and there can be no two opinions on the matter that the period of limitation applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and no to a reference which may be made to him by a Court or other authority. 13. There is another reason for not accepting the submission made by learned Chief Standing Counsel. If the period of limitation is held to be applicable only to the making of a reference, a very anomalous situation may arise. There will be no limitation where the Collector chooses to take suo motu action and he may do so at any time at his sweet will. Even where a reference is made within limitation i.e. within four years either by a Court or any of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section, the Collector may not proceed forthwith and the matter may be kept pending for years. He may commence proceedings after a long period, may be after decades. The property may change hands several times during this period which may create complications for the present owner who may not even be aware of the circumstances attending the execution of the instrument which is alleged to be undervalued and may not be in a position to lead evidence. The value of immovable property changes fast. There has been a meteoric rise in the value of immovable property in the recent past. If the proceedings are taken after a long period it may be become very difficult to give evidence regarding the market value of the property at the time the instrument was executed. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to fix a period of limitation within which the Collector must initiate action so that the enquiry may not be unnecessarily delayed. In this connection, it may be pointed out that after the decision of Himalaya House Co. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to fix a period of limitation within which the Collector must initiate action so that the enquiry may not be unnecessarily delayed. In this connection, it may be pointed out that after the decision of Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ( (1972) 1 SCC 726 : AIR 1972 SC 899 ) (supra) many States inserted S. 47-A by amendment in the STAMP ACT and the Collector was conferred power to suo motu call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property. In Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa. Tamil Nadu, Goa, Daman and Diu and West Bengal the piriod of limitation for the Collector to suo motu call for and examine the instrument is two years while Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh it is three years. This shows that the intention of the Legislature is that the entire exercise should be concluded within a reasonable period and may not be kept pending for long. 15. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows: 1. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of S. 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) to S. 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enum ated in the sub-section. (iv) Smt. Prakashvati (supra):- "We have carefully examined the orders of the first respondent. Noticeable the house is built on a very small area i.e. 68.84 sq yards only in a town which is not metropolis. Presumably the smallness of the area would not suggest the same by itself to be a costly property or be situated in a prestigious or posh locality, where the upper classes would rub shoulders to acquire it. Secondly, its being situated in a area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be decent locality, where people of high income group reside does not by itself make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price of property in question. Secondly, its being situated in a area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be decent locality, where people of high income group reside does not by itself make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price of property in question. Seemingly, influenced by the factor of the close proximity of Samrat Vikram colony the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, for one does not know how, determined the monthly rental value of the property at Rs.1500/- per mensem and worked out the prince of the house on that basis. Despite that the Tehsildar at a subsequent stage reported that the annual rental value of the house was Rs.1200/- per annum, whereas for house tax purpose it was recorded as Rs.480/- per annum. The first respondent ignoring the same worked out the monthly rental of the property at Rs.830/- per mensem and its value at Rs.2.5 lack, ostensibly on the basis that the average cost of construction of building in the year 1992 was about Rs.400/- per sq yards, inclusive of the land cost. This figures too was arrived at, one knows not from where, without determining the age of the building, the quality of construction and citing appropriate instances. The approach of the authorities, to say the least, was highly vain, casual and unsatisfactory and dehors any constructive material on the basis of which on could have said that the decision arrived at by the first respondent was fair and reasonable. We cannot approve of such an assumptive posture of the respondent in treating the appellant as an evader. We must therefore, upset the impugned order of the first respondent and the proceedings for the supposed deficient payment of stamp, but confining the ends result to the facts and circumstances of the instant case,when the valuation under Section 341 of the Stamps Rules. 12. Perusal of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners shows that Section 47-A empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the Legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. 12. Perusal of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners shows that Section 47-A empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the Legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A, if the Registering Officer is satisfied that the market value is less than even the minimum value, he may refer the document to the Collector for determination of the value, he may refer the document to the Collector for determination of the value of such property. This is the only function of Rule 341. It also shows that determination undervaluation has to be made with reference to the particular transaction presented for registration. If otherwise a document sets forth the mount 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 valuation 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 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. 13. It is also evident from perusal of the above referred judgments that Rule 341 is not ultra vires being only meant for a limited purpose of providing guideline. It carries out the purpose of S. 47-A of the Act. 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. 14. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. The market value has to be determined with reference to that date. 14. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. The period of limitation of four years in sub- section (4) to Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section. 15. Presumably the smallness of the area would not suggest the same by itself to be a costly property or be situated in a prestigious or posh locality, where the upper classes would rub shoulders to acquire it. While considering the aforesaid issue in the case of Prakashvati (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold that despite that the Tehsildar at a subsequent stage reported that the annual rental value of the house was Rs.1200/- per annum, whereas for house tax purpose it was recorded as Rs.480/- per annum. The first respondent ignoring the same worked out the monthly rental of the property at Rs.830/- per mensem and its value at Rs.2.5 lack, ostensibly on the basis that the average cost of construction of building in the year 1992 was about Rs.400/- per sq. yards, inclusive of the land cost. This figures too was arrived at, one knows not from where, without determining the age of the building, the quality of construction and citing appropriate instances. The approach of the authorities, to say the least, was highly vain, casual and unsatisfactory and dehors any constructive material on the basis of which it could have said that the decision arrived at by the first respondent was fair and reasonable. We cannot approve of such an assumptive posture of the respondent in treating the appellant as an evader. We must therefore, upset the impugned order of the first respondents and the proceedings for the supposed deficient payment of stamp, but confining the ends result to the facts and circumstances of the instant, when the valuation under Section 341 of the Stamps Rules. 16. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (supra) operative portion of the which is extracted here-in-below: " 14. 16. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (supra) operative portion of the which is extracted here-in-below: " 14. For the purpose of determining market value, it is not bare entry in revenue record, which is conclusive but entire state of affairs, as were available on the date of execution of sale deed, have to be looked into. The land in question has already crossed from being a mere agricultural land, unused, and undeveloped. Instead, development activities had already undergone, inasmuch as, layout plan was approved on 29.5.2007 by Development Authority and thereafter half of share of this very plot was purchased on 29.6.2007 after having been developed as residential colony with commercial activities also namely Pushpanjali Upavan Awasiya Colony and this fact is stated by petitioner himself in sale deed executed, which is a few days later i.e. 29.8.2007. The petitioner, therefore, was under an obligation to declare all these facts in the instrument in question and having failed to do so, I have no manner of doubt that he was contravened the provisions of section 27 of the Act, 1899, which were relevant for determining true market value of the property in question. 15. It is true that size of land is a relevant factor for determining its value but in the present case, nothing otherwise has been shown by petitioner, either before authorities below or before this Court to show that true market value of property in question could have been lower than what was stated in the sale deed dated 29.8.2007, which is not a much subsequent document but was executed within a few days after the sale deed in question." 17. Perusal of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners indicates that Section 47(a) empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not correct that the Collector is not empowered to determine, on a case being referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by Rule 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value truly or not. It is not correct that the Collector is not empowered to determine, on a case being referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by Rule 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value truly or not. Similarly, the hands and power of the Collector are not confined to the minimum value given in Rule 341. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect. It also reveals that the minimum laid down in Rule 341 is not conclusive or determinative of the controversy. However, this can be a circumstance which can be considered along with others. Rule 341 is not ultra vires being only meant for a limited purpose of providing guideline. It carries out the purpose of Section 47-A. The legislature under Section 47-A empowered the Collector to determine the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance and the duty payable thereon but it did not make any provision empowering the Collector to impose penalty. It also reveals that while exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. This judgment relates to determination of stamp duty wherein it has been held that the land is relevant for determining its value but facts relating to the land have be to be disclosed. Determination of deficiency, imposition of penalty, legality on the date of transfer of land it had already developed its potential utility as a residential colony with commercial activity. 18. I have examined the materials available on record in the light of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. 19. On examination, it is found that the petitioner purchased an agriculture plot of land bearing Khasra No.117/M area 0-4-0 situated at Village Kure Mau, Pargana Asiwan, Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasangaj, District Unnao from its recorded bhoomidhar in possession of Sri Imam Ali which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra Plots No.40,116 and 26. The said Khasra Plot No.117 does not situate in any residential area demarcated by the Collector. The said Khasra Plot No.117 does not situate in any residential area demarcated by the Collector. The petitioner received a notice from opposite party no.2 in regard to deficiency of stamp of Rs.8745/- and filed her objections and denied about any deficiency of the stamp duty. Opposite party no.2 obtained a report from Tehsil regarding the valuation of the land in question. Tehsildar, Hasanganj obtained report from Lekhpal concerned and submitted the report to opposite party no.2. In the report, it has been clearly stated that the land of the purchaser Shubratan are contiguous with the land under sale towards East and South and annexing site plan of the situation of the land under sale as well as the agricultural land of the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 did not accept the report on the ground that the Tehsildar himself or through his subordinate officer never got the spot inspection and fixed the valuation of the land in question at the exorbitant rate of Rs.1.25 per sq. yard and total value of Rs.75,000/- found the deficiency of Rs.9437.50/- and also directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.8747/- plus 15,000/- total Rs.23747/- and further a sum of Rs.185/- as deficiency in registration fee. 20. It is pertinent to note here that almost in each and every case whenever any report from Tehsil is called for, normally the Lekhpal go to the spot and submit his report to Tehsildar who after examining the same forwarded to the authority concerned. In the instant case same practice has been adopted. The opposite party no.2 even after ignoring the report of the Tehsildar and even without asking for a fresh report according to his own choice, preferred to dispose of the case without having any evidence, in support of the alleged objection in the deficiency of stamp. 21. Even, the opposite party no.1 also committed error of law in confirming the order of the opposite party no.2 without summoning the record of the case and without looking into the evidence of the petitioner in support of the claim that the land under sale was agricultural plot contiguous with her agricultural holdings and was not lying in any residential area declared by Collector by his subsequent order. 22. 22. Both the opposite parties have failed to consider that the value of land under sale has been fixed strictly in accordance with the order of the Collector on which proper stamp duty has been paid. There is no deficiency in the stamp duty as such the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the same. 23. Both the opposite party have also committed error of law that even after ignoring the report of the Tehsildar and even without asking for a fresh report according to his own choice preferred to dispose of the case without having any evidence. The opposite party no.2 in excess of its jurisdiction imposed upon the fine upon the petitioner when he was having no power for imposing the such fine. 24. The binding precedence provided in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein it has been clearly stipulated that there is no provision in the Indian STAMP ACT to impose fine. 25. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 7.3.1995 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 18.9.1994 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Unnao is hereby quashed. 26. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed 27. Needless to say that the Collector shall determine the market value on the reference in accordance with law having regard to the factors which are necessary to be gone into in the light of the observations made above and having regard to the law laid down by the different decisions as may be cited before him in course of the proceedings as he may reply upon. The parties would be at liberaty to represent their respective cases and lead evidence, if they are so advised. The collector may ask for or require further materials for the purpose of determining the market value, if he so desires. The materials already on record may also be taken into account. Such determination is to be made by the Collector as early as possible.