IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17924 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2009. Shashi Manocha ....Petitioner through Mr. Harsh Bhunger, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the orders dated 30.11.2006 [Annexure P-4] and 20.11.2007 [Annexure P-6] passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay of Rs.1,65,621/- towards deficiency in stamp duty and registration charges. The petitioner purchased land measuring about one acre in village Chak Hussaina, Lamba Pind, Tehsil Jalandhar on 30.5.2006 ostensibly for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Sub Registrar made a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act which has since been accepted by the Collector, Jalandar vide his impugned order, referred to above. The petitioner's appeal against the order of Collector also failed. Aggrieved, she has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that initially the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. However, on 15.11.2006 her application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings was allowed and an opportunity to file the reply was given. The petitioner's grievance is that no opportunity has been given to her to lead evidence to show that the market value of the subject property on the date of registration of the instrument was less than the Collector's rate on the basis of which she has been asked to make good the deficiency in stamp duty and registration charges. In this regard, the petitioner relies upon a sale instance pertaining to the same village whereby Gurdeep Singh son of Gurkirpal Singh sold land measuring 35 Kanals to one Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Roshan Singh on 14.10.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.31,42,968/-. A notice under Section 47-A was issued to the said vendee also. However, on the report made by the Field Staff regarding the market value of the said property, the notice was withdrawn on 31.5.2006 [Annexure P-7]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that it would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record some sale instances and/or any other material which might have some bearing on the determination of the market value of the subject property for the purpose of assessment of the stamp duty or registration charges payable thereupon. Suffice it to say that Section 47-A[2] of the Act obligates the Collector to determine the market value of the property at the time of execution of the instrument. The Collector's rate can only be a piece of evidence to be relied upon for that purpose and not the sole basis for determining the market value. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned orders [Annexures P-4 and P-6] are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector, Jalandhar for re-determination of the market value of the petitioner's land on the date when the sale deed was got executed. The Collector, Jalandhar shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the material/evidence in support of her plea, as early as possible but not later than four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Having regard to the substantial difference between the stamp duty affixed by the petitioner and as assessed by the Collector under the impugned order, which, of course, stands set aside, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- within one month from today towards deficiency in stamp duty without prejudice to her legal rights. The matter shall be decided afresh only after deposit of the said amount, failing which the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Disposed of. March 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE