IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.818 of 2006 ANITA SONI, WIFE OF SRI VIJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGANJ (SONAR TOLI), P.O. NAYAGANJ, P.S. DESARI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 5. CHINTAMANI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE BHOGRAJ CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BHARAT RAUT MIN MAHLAT, P.O. TOWN HAJIPUR, P.S. TOWN HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. …. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: M/s. Surendra Kishore Thakur & Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the State : M/s. Md. Arif, AC to SC III & Gautam Kumar Yadav, AC to SC III. ----------- 7. 07.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. In compliance of my order dated 3.2.2011 counter affidavit has been filed placing on record the report of the Additional Collector dated 16.01.1998 on the basis of which the sale deed in question was impounded by the Collector, Hajipur under orders dated 21.4.1998 directing the petitioner to furnish further stamp duty of Rs.1,50,000/-. Perusal of the report of the Additional Collector dated 16.01.1998, Annexure-3 indicates that he 2 visited the property in question and examined few persons and having considered the statement of the persons examined recommended that valuation of the land in question as Rs. 2,50,000/- per katha. The house standing over the land has been assessed at Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the light of the provisions contained in Rule-6 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 the property is to be assessed with reference to the valuation indicated in the Guideline Register which is maintained taking into account the average valuation of the highest five sale deeds registered in the preceding financial year. From perusal of Rule-6, it is quite evident that the valuation indicated in the Guideline Register is the minimum valuation of the property. The transaction may have been executed at a valuation higher than the valuation indicated in the Guideline Register and it is the duty of the Registering Authority to ascertain the true valuation of the property on which the same has been sold. In the instant case, the documents were impounded by the Collector relying on the report of the Additional Collector dated 16.01.1998 which does not even mention the name of persons who were examined in support of the findings 3 recorded in the report nor does the report indicate the basis of the statement of the witnesses examined by the Additional Collector. Counsel for the State however, submitted that property in question is in a corner and is accessible by two road and having considered its location higher valuation has been recommended. In my opinion the report of the Additional Collector dated 16.01.1998 is absolutely vague and ought not to have been relied upon. Accordingly, order dated 16,18.3.1998 and 21.4.1998 passed in Market Value Fixation Case No. 838 of 1997, Annexure-1 together with the order dated 30.8.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 108 of 2002-2003 is set aside with direction to the Collector to visit the property in question and find for himself the appropriate valuation of the vended property with reference to the materials/sale deeds executed in the area on or within one year of the date of execution. The inquiry in compliance of this order be conducted within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3. Location of the vended property is one of the consideration for fixing its price. The witnesses who are examined in support of the higher valuation than the 4 valuation indicated in the guideline register should make their statement with reference to materials which can be objectively examined. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)