Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.193 dated 27.12.2004 passed by the first respondent and quash the clause III in para 4 of the said Government Order and direct the respondents to grant benefit under Samadhana Scheme to the petitioner's sale deed document No.385 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, North Chennai, George Town, Chennai to permit the petitioner to pay stamp duty of 60% under Samadhana Scheme as per G.O. Ms. No.193 dated 27.12.2004.) A.P. SHAH, CJ. We have heard Mr. J. Ferozkhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the benefits under Samadhana Scheme to the petitioner's document No. 385 of 2002 on the file of the 4th respondent, viz., the Sub-Registrar, North Chennai by permitting him to pay the stamp duty of 60% under Samadhana Scheme as per G.O. Ms. No.193 dated 27.12.2004. 3. According to the petitioner, proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, were pending on the date the Samadhana Scheme was brought into force, however, the request of the petitioner has not been considered and therefore, he has approached this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon State of Tamil Nadu and others vs The Vikas Academy ( W.A. Nos. 1605 to 1610 of 2005 decided on 24.2.2006) wherein the Division Bench has held that the scheme also covers the matters which are pending before the appellate or revisional authority on the cut off dates fixed by the Scheme. 4. Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, were already concluded and an order was passed on 29.5.2003. However, no appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioner against the said order and under the circumstances, the proceedings cannot be said to be pending on the date of the commencement of the Scheme. However, no appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioner against the said order and under the circumstances, the proceedings cannot be said to be pending on the date of the commencement of the Scheme. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, however, pointed out that the order dated 29.5.2003 was not served on the petitioner till date and no appeal or revision is filed as the impugned order was not served on him and in the absence of service, the order has no legal force, effect or authority. In support of his submission, he placed much reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Indira Devi Vs Inspector General Of Registration,No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28 And Others ( 2005(1) CTC 733 ) and the decision of the Supreme Court in State Of West Bengal Vs M.R. Mondal And Another ( 2001(8) SCC 443 ), 5. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. We are of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. There is no proof of service of the order said to have been passed by the original authority. Unless sufficient proof is produced before this Court, this Court has to accept the contention of the petitioner that he has not received any order said to have been passed by the original authority. In that view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the proceedings under the Act are pending and hence, the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits of the Act. 6. With the result, the writ petition is ordered and the petitioner being entitled to the benefits of G.O. Ms. No.193 dated 27.12.2004 and the respondents are directed to assess the amount payable by the petitioner in terms of Samadhana Scheme. It is also made clear that in view of the above order, time limit prescribed in the Government Order for the Scheme will not be applicable to the petitioner and he is declared to be entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.