Stamp valuation under Section 47-A must assess true market value using statutory factors, not guideline rates alone.

Section 47-A valuation requires the registering authority to refer undervaluation disputes where the disclosed consideration does not reflect true market value, and the Collector must then determine market value after inquiry and hearing. Rule 5 governs that exercise, while guideline rates under the 2000 Rules are only prima facie aids and cannot be treated as conclusive. Market value must be assessed with reference to the deed execution date and all surrounding circumstances, including location, access, utility, and comparable factors. Applying these principles, the valuation orders were found unsustainable because the authorities considered the materials mechanically and failed to evaluate the relevant circumstances, so the matter required fresh determination after full opportunity to the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders determining market value and stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were sustainable, and whether market value had to be determined on the basis of the date of agreement, the guideline rate, and the surrounding circumstances under the applicable rules.

Analysis: Section 47-A requires the registering authority to make a reference where the consideration disclosed does not appear to reflect the true market value, and the Collector must determine market value after inquiry and hearing. For that exercise, Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 governs valuation, while guideline rates under the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 are only prima facie indicators and not conclusive. The valuation has to be made with reference to the execution of the deed and the surrounding circumstances affecting the property, including location, access, utility, and comparable factors. On the facts, both the Collector and the appellate authority failed to properly consider all relevant circumstances and applied the materials mechanically, so neither valuation order could be sustained.

Conclusion: The valuation orders were unsustainable, and the matter required fresh determination by the Collector after giving full opportunity to the parties.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment of market value and stamp duty in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In stamp valuation proceedings, guideline rates are only prima facie aids, and the market value must be determined afresh by considering the statutory factors and all relevant surrounding circumstances.

---