Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Company which was originally known as Gati Corporation Ltd. The name was subsequently changed as M/s. Gati Limited. The said Company purchased a landed property from the Small Industries Development Corporation, Chennai which is a State owned Corporation on 02.01.2001 and registered as Document No.83 of 2001 by the Sub Registrar, Ambattur. But the Sub Registrar did not agree with the valuation made in the document. Therefore, he referred the same under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for adjudication. Challenging the said proceeding and for a mandamus to return the document to the petitioner, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the value fixed by the SIDCO cannot be accepted for the purpose of deciding the land value for stamp duty. According to the respondent, the guideline value was taken into consideration, based upon which, the proceeding under Section 47A of the Act was initiated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said stand taken by the respondent is erroneous. He would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the government of Tamil Nadu rep. by Special Secretary to Government (Commercial Taxes (JI Department, Secretariat, Chennai and two others Vs. S. Jayalakshmi and others reported in 2009 (1) CTC 305 , wherein similar proceeding initiated under Section 47-A of the Act was quashed on the ground that the value for a property fixed by the Governmental agency should be taken as guideline market value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty. In paragraph 29 and 30 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: “This Court in the judgment reported in A.J. Mapillai Mohadeen V. The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, 2008 (5) CTC 239 has considered the issue in respect of the value fixed by the Public Authority in a public auction sale. In paragraph 29 and 30 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: “This Court in the judgment reported in A.J. Mapillai Mohadeen V. The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, 2008 (5) CTC 239 has considered the issue in respect of the value fixed by the Public Authority in a public auction sale. While deciding the said case, this Court has taken into consideration, the judgments reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmidevi, 2008 (4) SCC 720 ; R. Sukumaran V. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (2) CTC 329 ; S.P. Padmavathy V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617 and the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in State of Rajasthan V. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008 (1) CTC 6 has held that unless there is an under valuation of the subject matter with fraudulent intention to evade proper payment of stamp duty, the respondents cannot impose such a heavy stamp duty on the petitioner with regard to the document in question and hence, the value fixed by the Public Authority in the public auction cannot be doubted after reference under Section 47-A(1). The said case pertaining to the sale of the assets by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation which was taken possession in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and the payment of the stamp duty in respect of such sale. This court has ultimately held in the said decision that the market value stated in the instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct and that value cannot be doubted or disbelieved. This Court, taking into consideration that the allotment of plots were made in the year 1985, and that the sale deeds have been registered in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001, and no reason has been stated by the authority with regard to the fraudulent evasion of stamp duty payable on instruments, and in the light of the principles laid down in the above said decision, is of the view, there is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned orders allowing the writ petitions.” 4. In view of the above settled legal position, I am of the view that SIDCO being a Government owned Corporation cannot be stated to have indulged in fraudulent activity to show lesser market value for the purpose of stamp duty evasion. In such view of the matter, the proceedings of the respondent in Ta.Ka.No.44 dated 13.02.2001, is quashed. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed; consequently, it is declared that the petitioner will be entitled for return of the documents. It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of this writ petition, final order has been passed under Section 47A of the Act. In that event, the final order is also quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.