Judgment :- Learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner prays for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent bearing No.862/2004 dated 3.1.2005 and quash the same with the direction to the respondents to release the document pending on the file of the first respondent – vide document No.3135/97 registered on 21.4.1977 without any demand by way of deficit stamp duty and registration fees. 3. Following facts are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition: The petitioner purchased the property in question in an auction held by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC). The said auction was held pursuant to the proceedings of TIIC to recover the amounts due from M/s.Annai Solvant Industries Private Limited. The petitioner was the successful bidder having purchased the property for the consideration recited in the document, namely the sum of Rs.9,75,000/-. 4. However, according to the petitioner, the document was not released for the alleged proceedings pending under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. No orders have been passed by the Revenue in the proceedings under the Stamp Act. However, by the impugned order dated 3.1.2005, the petitioner has been directed to avail the benefits of the Samadan Scheme and the petitioner has been called upon to pay the total sum of Rs.2,40,825/- calculated on the basis of the Samadan Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the amount as demanded for the following reasons: (i) The property is conveyed by the public body and hence, the stamp duty has to be calculated only on the actual sale consideration paid by him. (ii) The petitioner cannot be directed to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the guideline value. (iii) At any rate, the petitioner is entitled to be handed over the original document. 6. I am unable to sustain the objection relating to the contentions that the stamp duty should be calculated only on the basis of the sale consideration recited in the document considering that the vendor of the property is a State Government undertaking. (iii) At any rate, the petitioner is entitled to be handed over the original document. 6. I am unable to sustain the objection relating to the contentions that the stamp duty should be calculated only on the basis of the sale consideration recited in the document considering that the vendor of the property is a State Government undertaking. It is no doubt true that this Court has been passing repeated orders holding that in respect of the properties conveyed by the Government or public institutions like Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, over the sale of such properties, the stamp duty cannot be based on either the guideline value or the notional market value and that the stamp duty has to be calculated only on the basis of the actual sale consideration. 7. The same position does not arise in this writ petition. It is true that in the sale deed, TIIC is shown as the vendor. But the actual fact is that TIIC is not the owner of the property and the sale is conducted only pursuant to the auction conducted by TIIC for the recovery of the amount due from the debtor who has mortgaged the property to TIIC. Therefore, the sale consideration obtained in the auction conducted by TIIC, cannot be treated as equivalent to the Government or Governmental bodies selling the properties as their own on the price agreed by both parties. Therefore, such auction proceedings are liable for the payment of stamp duty to be fixed in terms of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. 8. With regard to the objection, namely that the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the stamp duties on the guideline value, it is well settled that in arriving at the proper market value, the guideline value is not binding on the Revenue authorities and that the proper method is to fix the stamp duty only on the basis of the fair market price. The guideline value is only a guideline and not binding on both parties. Therefore, it is open for the appropriate authority to arrive at the proper market value as on the date of the transaction. 9. The guideline value is only a guideline and not binding on both parties. Therefore, it is open for the appropriate authority to arrive at the proper market value as on the date of the transaction. 9. As regards the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty in terms of the Samadan Scheme, it is certainly open for the petitioner to either accept the same or not to accept the same. There cannot be any compulsion on the petitioner to pay the amount as demanded in the impugned order. In the event of the petitioner not agreeing to pay the amount, it is certainly open for the respondents to proceed further in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act. 10. However, considering the usual orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to be released with the original of the document, subject to the usual conditions. 11. With the result, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) If the petitioner is not willing to pay the amount as demanded under the Samadan Scheme, there can be no compulsion for the petitioner to pay the demanded amount. The respondents are entitled to proceed further in accordance with law under Section 47-A of the Act. (ii) It is also not known as to why the proceedings are kept pending for the past more than 7 years. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders after due enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no justification to keep the proceedings pending endlessly. (iii) The respondents are also directed to release the document forthwith, subject to the usual condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking not to alienate the property and to produce the document as and when required. The document will be released subject to the endorsement of pendency of the proceedings under the Stamp Act. 12. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. W.P.M.P. is closed.