Judgment :- The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in A.2.9752/98 dated 3. 2000 served on the petitioners on 33. 2000 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. .2. The writ petition has been filed on the following grounds. The petitioners are brothers. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 348/1, 348/2, 348/3, 368/1, 368/2, 368/3, 369/1,2,3, 369/4, 369/5, 370/1, 370/2, 370/3 and 371 Naranammalpuram Village, Tirunelveli Taluk covering an extent of 173. 00 hectares originally belonged to the petitioners brothers Subiapandian and Iyyathurai by virtue of their purchase. It is the case of the petitioners that when the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act was invoked against the petitioners, it was held by the authorities that the lands are agricultural lands. All of a sudden on 33. 2000, the petitioners were served a demand notice dated 3. 2000 demanding a sum of Rs. 6,98,668/-towards urban land tax. That order of demand is put in issue before this Court on the ground that except the demand notice no other proceedings were served on the petitioners i.e. neither a notice before the assessment nor the assessment order has been served on the petitioners. In such circumstances, the demand cannot be legally sustainable. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on written instructions submitted that the notice under Section 4(b) was served on 11. 1993 by fixing the enquiry on 112. 1993 on the petitioners wives one Rajammal and Rajeswari and nobody has attended enquiry nor filed any objection as contemplated under the Act. On the basis of the records, an assessment order has been passed. Even the assessment order has been duly served on the petitioners on 3. 1994. The assessment order has become final as it has not further been agitated. Further, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the consequential order of demand without quashing the assessment order. 4. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. .5. It is not as if the respondents have committed grave error in passing the assessment order. All the formalities as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act has been followed by the respondents scrupulously by issuing notice calling upon objection and fixing enquiry. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. .5. It is not as if the respondents have committed grave error in passing the assessment order. All the formalities as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act has been followed by the respondents scrupulously by issuing notice calling upon objection and fixing enquiry. All the notices have been duly served and even the assessment order has been duly served on the petitioners. In this factual circumstances, the entire ground on which the writ petition has been filed has to be rejected as incorrect. But one factor which militate the issue in favour of the petitioners is that while considering the case of the petitioners under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, it was recorded in favour of the petitioners that the lands are only agricultural lands. This is the contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This aspect of the matter has to be agitated before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authority against the order. But leaving all these procedures in respect of an assessment order passed in the year 1994, a writ petition came to be filed in the year 2000 and it was kept pending for more than 7 years before this Court. In the normal course the writ petition would have been dismissed by giving reason that the contention raised in this writ petition has been properly met by the respondents by giving details about the issuance of notice. However, as already stated the petitioners are having some case in their favour to contend before the appellate authority and the petitioners have miserably failed to avail the opportunity in each and every stage of the proceedings and also failed to file appeal before the appellate authority in time, this Court is of the view that if at all any indulgence is given to the petitioners that has to be given by putting the petitioners on some terms. 6. In the totality of the circumstances, having regard to the particular fact that the authorities have declared the land as agricultural land, the petitioners are permitted to file appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. In the totality of the circumstances, having regard to the particular fact that the authorities have declared the land as agricultural land, the petitioners are permitted to file appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, such indulgence is granted only on the petitioners making the payment of entire amount, if the amount has not been paid already within the time granted by this Court. By this indulgence the petitioners are getting another lease on life to agitate the matter right from the appellate authority. If the conditions as stated above has not been complied with, the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence granted by this Court and it is open to the respondents to recover the entire amount in accordance with law. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected W.M.P is closed.