2005 (98) RD 511), Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur & another and 2009 (27) LCD 442, Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. & others. In para-13 of the judgment provides as under:-
"13. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub-Registrar has referred any other material in support of their orders. In Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpurt and another, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 (para-17), the ambit and scope of Section 47-A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 253 and various other cases it has been held that under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden."
See also: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1429837/
