JUDGMENT :- K.K. SASIDHARAN, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27 April, 2010 in W.P.No.41808 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to refund the excess stamp duty collected in respect of sale deed bearing No.1117 of 2002 dated 16 May, 2002. Background Facts: 2. The appellant purchased a house property bearing Door No.5, Balaji Avenue I Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 in a public auction conducted to recover the mortgage amount due to M/s. Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd. The auction was conducted by a private auctioneer. Since the petitioner was the highest bidder, her bid was confirmed. Thereafter the document executed by the mortgagee was presented before the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar called upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,48,981/- by way of stamp duty on the basis of guideline value. Later she was asked to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,407/-. The appellant paid the stamp duty and thereafter filed a writ petition claiming refund. 3. The District Registrar filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition. According to the registration authority, the Sub Registrar entertained a doubt about the value of property shown in the document and based on the value shown in the guideline register maintained by the department, a demand was made to pay additional stamp duty. The appellant requested the Registration Officer by way of her letter dated 16 May 2002 to refer the matter to the Collector under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Accordingly the matter was referred to the Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai. 4. The Competent Authority after issuing notice to the appellant fixed the market value and called upon her to pay deficit stamp duty. The order was passed on 25 June, 2002. The appellant immediately remitted the deficit stamp duty. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the Deputy Collector exercising the power under Section 47-A has already passed an order determining the market value and so long as the said order is in force, the appellant cannot maintain a writ petition seeking direction to refund the stamp duty. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ appeal. Submissions: 6. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ appeal. Submissions: 6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that by demanding the stamp duty on market value, the Registration Department has challenged the very sale and virtually the department made a challenge to the title itself. According to the learned counsel, though it was a private sale it has all the characteristics of a Court sale and as such the Registration Authority is bound to accept the amount shown in the document as the correct market value. It was further contended that the concept of "guideline rate" has no application in the matter of auction sale. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The core issue: 8. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the stamp duty not withstanding the currency of the order passed by the competent authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Discussion: 9. There is no dispute that the sale in question was a private sale. The bid submitted by the appellant was accepted by the auctioneer and accordingly the sale was confirmed in her name. The document was registered by the Sub Registrar and ultimately at the request of the appellant the matter was referred to the authority to determine the proper stamp duty under the Stamp Act. The competent authority fixed the market value and the said order was duly complied with by the appellant. 10. It is true that the auction was conducted by a private auctioneer. The fact that the sale was through a private auctioneer would not make it a court sale. 11. The property in question was sold at the instance of the mortgagee in exercise of the right conferred under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. There was no Court intervention at any point of time. There is nothing on record to show that there were several bidders and the auction was conducted by giving wide publicity. 11. The property in question was sold at the instance of the mortgagee in exercise of the right conferred under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. There was no Court intervention at any point of time. There is nothing on record to show that there were several bidders and the auction was conducted by giving wide publicity. Merely because the mortgager has not challenged the sale on the ground that bid amount does not reflect the market value, it cannot be said that the price fetched in the auction represented the actual market value. The sale conduced by the Court would stand on a high pedestal. No such sanctity can be given to a private sale. Therefore, the Registering Authority was not bound to accept the valuation shown in the document executed by the mortgagee on the basis of the amount fetched in the public auction. 12. The Collector exercises the statutory function while dealing with the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The Collector should follow the mandatory procedure before fixing the market value. The appellant has no grievance with the decision taken by the Collector. The appellant accepted the order and paid the stamp duty. The order under Section 47-A has now become final. The question of granting a mandamus to refund the stamp duty during the currency of the order passed by the Collector does not arise. Writ of Mandamus: 13. Writ of Mandamus is essentially a command. In order to obtain a writ of this nature, the party must demonstrate that he has a legal right and there was a corresponding duty on the opposite party. Therefore, the right and duty must co-exist. Mere right alone would not serve the purpose. There should be a duty cast on the opposite party to perform a particular act. It may be in the nature of a duty enjoined by the Statute or Rules or Regulations having the force of law. Similarly, only a subsisting right can be enforced by way of Mandamus. 14. The question of granting mandamus does not arise in case the order passed by the statutory authority in the very same subject, remain unchallenged. 15. The writ of Mandamus is not the remedy to claim money. Merely because the opposite party is Government or a Statutory Corporation it cannot be said that a Writ Petition would lie to claim money. The question of granting mandamus does not arise in case the order passed by the statutory authority in the very same subject, remain unchallenged. 15. The writ of Mandamus is not the remedy to claim money. Merely because the opposite party is Government or a Statutory Corporation it cannot be said that a Writ Petition would lie to claim money. In ordinary circumstances, the remedy is only a Civil Suit, the only exception being the statutory claims. Similarly, a writ would lie for a direction to the State to disburse the amount in case the amount has already been determined. This is also with certain exceptions. A writ of Mandamus is not a writ of execution. In short, a Writ of Mandamus can be issued only in specified circumstances and not as a matter of course. 16. Things would be different in case the authorities fail to act in spite of the statute imposing a duty on them to act in a particular manner or to do a particular act or to perform a specified duty. The authorities are expected to act in accordance with statutes, rules and regulations governing the matter. In case of their in action, this writ is a weapon to make them act and adhere to the laws. 17. The question as to whether a Writ would lie for refund of money came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011(1) Scale 588). The Supreme Court held that normally a writ petition will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The exception being the power of the High Court while enforcing fundamental or statutory rights and by way of consequential reliefs. The Supreme Court further held that a writ petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering refund of money. The Supreme Court considered the earlier authorities on the point and summarised the legal position thus: "7. The Supreme Court further held that a writ petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering refund of money. The Supreme Court considered the earlier authorities on the point and summarised the legal position thus: "7. ............The legal position becomes clear when the decision in Suganmal read with the other decisions of this Court on the issue, referred to below: (i) Normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. But an order for payment of money may be made in a writ proceeding, in enforcement of statutory functions of the State or its officers, [vide Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa (1962) Supp 1 SCR 242. (ii) If a right has been infringed -whether a fundamental right or a statutory right and - the aggrieved party comes to the court for enforcement of the right, it will not be giving complete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that existing right has been infringed. The High Court, while enforcing fundamental or statutory rights, has the power to give consequential relief by ordering payment of money realized by the government without the authority of law (vide State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai : AIR 1964 SC 1006 ). (iii) A petition for issue of writ of mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money, to the return of which the Petitioner claims a right. The aggrieved party seeking refund has to approach the civil court for claiming the amount, though the High Courts have the power to pass appropriate orders in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 for payment of money, (vide Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1965 SC 1740 ). 18. In the case on hand, the Collector has already passed an order determining the stamp duty payable by the appellant. The appellant has complied with the said order and thereby satisfied the demand made by the statutory authority. 18. In the case on hand, the Collector has already passed an order determining the stamp duty payable by the appellant. The appellant has complied with the said order and thereby satisfied the demand made by the statutory authority. Though the appellant got an appellate remedy, she has not chosen to approach the forum constituted for the purpose of examining the correctness and legality of the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act. The order passed under Section 47-A had attained finality. Unless and until the said order is set aside, there is no question of refund of stamp duty. The Collector has no legal obligation or duty to refund the stamp duty in the wake of the order passed by him determining the actual stamp duty payable by the appellant. 19. The order under Section 47-A was passed on 25 June, 2002. The appellant very promptly paid the amount and that too, on the very same day. It was only four months thereafter, the appellant has filed a writ petition praying for an order to refund the stamp duty. The learned Single Judge considered the matter extensively and indicated in so many words about the unsustainability of the claim. In spite of such a reasoned order, the appellant has chosen to file a writ appeal with an unjustifiable and meritless claim. We find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant. 20. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.