Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceeding A1/11041/97 dated 25. 1999, quash the same and direct the respondent to accept the sum of Rs.13,99,996/-as per the official challan dated 23. 98 earlier issued by the 1st respondent, directing the 3rd respondent to accept the said sum and on such payment directing the 2nd respondent to release the original deed of sale, registered as document No.509/97 to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts leading to this case are as under:- 3. The petitioner purchased the property namely, door No.282, Mount Road, Teynampet, Chennai by sale deed dated 37. 1997 and when the sale deed was presented for registration before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent after assigning a number 509/97 felt that the market value of the property under the sale deed has not been truly set forth. Therefore the 2nd respondent referred the sale deed dated 37. 97 to the 1st respondent for determination of the market value and the proper duty payable thereon. The 1st respondent conducted an enquiry and determined the market value under Sec.47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and informed the petitioner that he had to pay the difference in the stamp duty amounting to a sum of Rs.13,99,996/-. In pursuance of such determination the 1st respondent issued a challan dated 23. 98 to enable the petitioner to remit the said sum before the Reserve Bank of India, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner could not muster sufficient funds for the remittance of the amount and only in April 1999 he approached the 3rd respondent to remit the said sum. The 3rd respondent asked the petitioner, as the date of the challan was dated 23. 98, to put a subsequent date and seal reflecting the present date of remittance. Hence the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for affixing the present date seal on the official challan earlier issued to him. Instead of doing so, the 1st respondent sent a communication dated 25. 99 directing the petitioner to avail the concession under the Samadan Scheme and remit a sum of Rs.21,37,498/- being the alleged 50% of the deficit stamp duty on or before 30.99. Aggrieved by the order dated 25. Instead of doing so, the 1st respondent sent a communication dated 25. 99 directing the petitioner to avail the concession under the Samadan Scheme and remit a sum of Rs.21,37,498/- being the alleged 50% of the deficit stamp duty on or before 30.99. Aggrieved by the order dated 25. 99, the above writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent herein wherein it was stated that the document bearing No.509/97 was received for collecting a sum of Rs.42,74,996/- being the deficit stamp duty for fixing the market value under Sec.47(A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is specifically stated in the counter that the relevant file does not contain the inspection notes of the then Special Deputy Collector, statutory notice in Form II and the provisional order for arriving at the said deficit stamp duty as claimed by the writ petitioner. In short, the case of the 1st respondent is that no statutory order was issued by determining the market value of the property as contemplated under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Only in the absence of any statutory order, the petitioner was asked to avail the benefits of the Samadan Scheme and as such according to the 1st respondent the order impugned has been correctly passed. 5. Heard Mr. Habibullah Badsha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Pleader for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 6. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that an enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent after due inspection and an order has been passed determining the market value of the property covered under document No.509/97 and also determining the deficit stamp duty payable by the writ petitioner at Rs.13,99,996/-. Only thereafter a challan dated 23. 98 has been issued to remit the said amount. On the other hand it has been specifically stated by the 1st respondent that no adjudication has been made and no order has been passed determining the market value of the property and the amount of duty payable by the writ petitioner. 7. Only thereafter a challan dated 23. 98 has been issued to remit the said amount. On the other hand it has been specifically stated by the 1st respondent that no adjudication has been made and no order has been passed determining the market value of the property and the amount of duty payable by the writ petitioner. 7. If that being so, a duty is cast upon the writ petitioner to produce the order passed by the 1st respondent under Sec.47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act directing him to pay a sum of Rs.13,99,996/-. The only submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner is that a challan dated 23. 98 was issued by the 1st respondent to remit the above said amount and he could not do so due to paucity of funds. It is not in dispute that the deficit amount could be remitted only after an order has been passed by the 1st respondent under Sec.47-A(2) determining the market value of the property of the writ petitioner. The details with regard to the enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent and the final order passed thereon under Sec.47-A(1) are missing in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition. In the absence of such determination, by the 1st respondent under Sec.47-A(1), the writ petitioner is not entitled to remit a sum of Rs.13,99,996/-on the basis of the challan only. After all, challan should be preceded by an order determining the market value which has not been filed by the writ petitioner even though it has been asserted by him that the 1st respondent determined the market value according to the statutory principles and determined the deficit stamp duty on the instrument at Rs.13,99,996/-. 8. For better appreciation, Sec.47-A(1) and (2) are extracted below: "47-A.Instruments of conveyance etc., undervalued how to be dealt with:-(1)If the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has reason to believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act,determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty." 9. From the above it is very clear that there should be an order by the 1st respondent under Sec.47-A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act. As already mentioned, no such order was produced by the writ petitioner before this court to accept his contention that the deficit stamp duty was determined at Rs.13,99,996/-. 10. It is also useful to refer to Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, which is extracted as under: "4. Procedure on receipt of reference under section 47-A:-(1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section(1) of section 47-A, from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form I, (a)to every person by whom, and (b)to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed, informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him his representations, if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice. .(2) The Collector may, if he thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule(1) has been issued. .(3) The Collector may for the purpose of his enquiry- .(a) call for any information or record from any public office, offer or authority under the Government or any local authority; .(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and .(c) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned. .(4) After considering the representations, if any, received from the person to whom notice under sub-rule(1) has been issued, and after examining the records and evidence before him, the collector shall pass an order in writing provisionally determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable. The basis on which the provisional market value was arrived at shall be clearly indicated in the order." 11. A conjoint reading of Sec.47-A(1) and (2) of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 4 of the above said Rules make it explicitly clear that unless there is proper adjudication determining the market value of the property by passing an order in writing, the writ petitioner cannot be issued with any challan to pay the deficit stamp duty. If the writ petitioner is not able to show the order of determination as aforesaid in the Act and the Rules, he cannot rely on the challan alone to show there was a determination determining the market value and the deficit stamp duty under the Act and the Rules. In view of this, no infirmity could be found in the order impugned in the writ petition, directing the writ petitioner to take advantage of the Samadan Scheme. It is open to the writ petitioner either to avail the Samadan Scheme or to take recourse under Sec.47-A (1) and (2) of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 5 of the said Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules for determining the market value of the property at the time of executing the sale deed so as to arrive at the deficit stamp duty payable by the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner is not ready to avail the Samadan Scheme, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry contemplated under the Act and the Rules to determine the market value at the time of execution of the document No.509/97 as expeditiously as possible. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.