IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13901 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th March, 2011. Bhupinder Kaur Petitioner through Mr. A.S.Cheema, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Monica Chhibbar, DAG, 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 by the orders dated 08.08.2008 and 27.05.2009 [Annexures P-3 and P-5] passed by the Collector, Mansa and Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot respectively asking her to make up the deficiency in stamp duty as well as registration charges of ` 30 lacs for the land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas purchased by her vide sale deed dated 14.11.2007. The petitioner's precise case is that the Collector rate fixed by the Collector, Mansa is highly exorbitant inasmuch as the petitioner was willing to sell the afore-stated land for a sum of ` 7 lacs in the year 2009 and even today she is ready and willing to sell the above-stated land to the State for a sum of ` 12 lacs. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Section 47-A of the Registration Act, 1908 contemplates determination of the market value of the property for the purposes of affixation of the stamp duty. The market value obviously means a price which a willing buyer is ready to pay and a willing seller is willing to accept and not a distress or speculative sale deed. The market value can be fixed by the Collector after taking into consideration the sale instances, location, potentiality and future prospectus of the property. No such exercise in the present case has been undertaken by the Collector who has merely gone by the rule of thumb, namely, the Collector's rate. Since no such exercise has been undertaken by the Collector, the matter requires reconsideration. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 08.08.2008 and 27.05.2009 [Annexures P-3 and P-5] are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Mansa with a direction to re-determine the market value of the subject land after affording the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law. After determining the market value of the land purchased by the petitioner, if the Collector arrives at the conclusion that she is liable to pay some additional stamp duty, the amount of ` 75,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the Collector, Mansa in compliance of the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by this Court shall also be accounted for. If it is found that the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional stamp duty, the said amount shall be refunded to her. Disposed of. Dasti. March 15, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE