Judgment :- The present writ petition is filed by R. Ravi, against the impugned order passed by the first respondent made in No.58051/N1/2003 dated 30.01.2004, quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 24.11.2003, enquire the same and pass further orders in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner presented a document for registration before the Sub-Registrars Office, Uthukottai, by valuing a land measuring 0.88 cents in Survey No.275 A/2A and 275A/5 in Uthukottai Village, Tiruvallore District under document No.1017 and 1227 of 1997 as per the prevailing guidline vaule at that time. The third respondent, holding that the property is a house site, valued the property at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. feet and referred the matter under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. After the reference made by the third respondent, the second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.82/97, held that for document No.1227/97 the petitioner must pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.79,224/-and for document No.1017/97 under Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.77/97 a deficit stamp duty of Rs.45,315/-has to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the above said orders in Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.77/97 and 82/97 were made on the printed format without application of mind by the second respondent. The petitioner produced a certificate of the Village Administrative Officer that the land was used for agricultural purposes. But ignoring the above said fact the second respondent has passed the order. As per the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner received the order copy on 23.05.2003. Whileso the petitioner suffered an attack of jaundice during the last week of May 2003 which occasioned a delay of 123 days in filing the said appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner states that the said delay was neither wilful nor due to negligence. Since Allopathy medicine did not cure the disease, the petitioner had to resort to Siddha medicine and the malady persisted for over a period of three months. After recovery from the said illness, in November 2003, he was able to attend his normal work. In view of the above reasons the petitioner was not able to file the appeal before the first respondent within the stipulated time. 4. After recovery from the said illness, in November 2003, he was able to attend his normal work. In view of the above reasons the petitioner was not able to file the appeal before the first respondent within the stipulated time. 4. In spite of this when the petitioner filed an appeal, unfortunately, the appeal was not in accordance with the rules of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules. When the matter was taken up by the first respondent, it was argued that the first respondent, being an Appellate Authority, even without issuing notice, calling for the petitioner to appear for the enquiry or hearing summarily rejected the petitioners appeal on the sole ground that the appeal was not in the proper format. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that had there been a simple notice given by the first respondent, the petitioner could have appeared and cured all the defects and would have got an appropriate order against the order passed by the second respondent. But unfortunately, since no notice was given to the petitioner by the first respondent, the entire purpose for which the appeal is contemplated under Rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules was defeated and in any event it was further pleaded that if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to go before the first respondent by making use of the same, he would be able to represent the statutory appeal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules. 6. The Additional Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the remedy available for the petitioner is only by way of preferring an Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard the parties on both the sides. 8. The petitioner, after being aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai, suffered major health problems, in view of the attack of Jaundice during the last week of May 2003. After recovery from the illness, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the first respondent. Heard the parties on both the sides. 8. The petitioner, after being aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai, suffered major health problems, in view of the attack of Jaundice during the last week of May 2003. After recovery from the illness, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, being an Appellate Authority, is under legal obligation to issue notice to the petitioner by intimating the date of hearing of the appeal and after completion of service of notice upon the petitioner, the first respondent being the Appellate Authority, should have listed the matter for hearing. If the appeal submitted by the petitioner is not ready in view of any defects in the papers filed by the petitioner, yet again, the Appellate Authority should have informed the petitioner to rectify the defects. The Appellate Authority, namely the first respondent herein, has neither informed about the defects by notifying the defect for rectification nor informed the date of hearing. Therefore the summary rejection by the impugned order stating that the petitioner failed to present the appeal in proper format is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the non speaking order passed by the first respondent is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defects. In view of the long pendancy of the matter, though the respondent submitted that a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the remedy and a writ petition is not maintainable, it will be a travesty of justice to dismiss the matter at this stage for the reason that the petitioner has wrongly approached the writ court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. By taking into account the fact that the petitioner has approached this court by filing writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, no prejudice would be caused if the matter is remanded back to the first respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the court is not granting any relief except remanding back the matter to the first respondent for consideration of the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the court is not granting any relief except remanding back the matter to the first respondent for consideration of the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.