Judgment : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order of the first respondent, dated 011. 2007 made in Mu.Mu.No.49725/No.3/07. 2. The second respondent herein, by order, dated 111. 2004 has held as per Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamps Act, as under valuation of the property, that was sold under the Document No.371/2002 on 22.04.2002. As per the order, it is seen that the appellant herein had obtained the property at Joyce Ponniah Street, Nalliyakodan Nagar, Kidangal Village, Tindivanam with the superstructure for about 2907 sq.ft and the value was computed at Rs.8,32,557/-and hence, as per the impugned order, he was directed to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.64,426/-. Aggrieved by which, the appellant sent a legal notice to the second respondent, dated 08.09.2007 and for service of notice, postal acknowledgments have been marked. 3. According to Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the second respondent has passed an order without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, by way of issuing notice to him. In the grounds of appeal filed under Section 47(A)(5) of the Indian Stamps Act, the appellant herein has categorically stated before the first respondent that the copy of the order, dated 111. 2004 made in C.P.No.1056/2003 was not served on him and that the Special Tahsildar, Villupuram, without following principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order. According to him, only after issuance of notice, dated 23.07.2007, he received a copy of the order passed by the second respondent herein. 4. As per the order, dated 011. 2007 made in Mu.Mu.No.49725/No.3/07 referring the Appeal dated 28/09/07, the first respondent has held that under Rule 9(1), the appeal could have been preferred within two months from the date of order passed by the second respondent and with the copies under Rule 9(2), but was not filed in time and as per Rule 9(3), supporting documents were not attached with the appeal. With the aforesaid findings, the first respondent held that the appeal could be taken on file, as per Section 47(A)(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. 5. Mr. R. Muthian, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondents submitted that notice was sent to the appellant herein by ordinary post that is why acknowledgment for the service of notice could not be filed. 5. Mr. R. Muthian, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondents submitted that notice was sent to the appellant herein by ordinary post that is why acknowledgment for the service of notice could not be filed. It is not in dispute that for service of notice on the appellant, no document has been marked as proof or evidence. 6. Under Section 47(A)(5) of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order by the authority, under Rules 9(2) and 9 (3), may appeal, before such authority as may be prescribed in his behalf on such appeal, which shall be preferred within such time and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner has been prescribed by rules made under the subsection. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his contention, relied on the following decisions: 1. Kaliammal, M. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), 2005 (3) CTC 529 2. Indira Devi vs. Inspector General of Registration, 2005 (1) CTC 733 8. As per the decisions cited above, it has been held that before passing orders under Section 47(A), sending notice to the aggrieved party is mandatory. Similarly, the period of limitation commences only after service of copy of the order. In this case, admittedly, there is no evidence to show that there was any notice caused to the appellant, which is also violative of principles of natural justice. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the order against the appellant was communicated to him. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, I find it reasonable to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 011. 2007 made in Mu.Mu.No.49725/No.3/07, passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to dispose the same in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, by way of causing notice and the matter shall be disposed, according to law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.