Judgment :- 1. On consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Third Respondent issued under Memo No.1714/09/A1, dated 20.1.2009 in and under which the Petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.5,13,000/- towards deficit Stamp duty and penalty, failing which to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the same and for consequential reliefs. 3. The Petitioner is the Charitable Trust formed on 19.9.1996 under Deed of Declaration of Trust, registered as Document No.145 of 1996 with the Joint Sub-Registrar-3, Salem. During 2007, the Petitioner/Trust executed a Deed of Declaration in respect of 7 acres of land out of 70 acres of land owned by the Trust comprised in different Survey Numbers, the details of which are given in Para 6 at Page 3 of the Affidavit. The Petitioner has also executed one supplementary Trust Deed and submitted the same for registration with the Second Respondent/Sub-Registrar of Pennagaram and the document was kept pending without taken up for registration on the ground that the transaction effected under the document is in the nature of transfer and the document is already forwarded by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent/District Registrar-cum-Collector, Dharmapuri District. The failure to register and return the document compelled the Petitioner to send a representation to the First Respondent explaining as to how the document cannot be treated as document of transfer, but is only a supplementary Trust Deed. The First Respondent having not satisfied with the explanation, issued the show cause notice to the Petitioner in his proceedings dated 25.1.2008 calling for explanation as to why the document should not be treated as Transfer Deed and as to why he should not be directed to pay the deficit Stamp duty of Rs.5,12,536/- and penalty of Rs.464/- and the Petitioner sent the copy of his explanation dated 7.12.2007. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner forwarded his explanation on 27.12.2007, thereafter, there was no further progress in this regard till the receipt of the Notice dated 11.12.2008 and that the Petitioner received the Letter dated 11.12.2008 along with the copy of the earlier letter dated 28.11.2008 from the Personal Secretary of the First Respondent regarding details of recovery of the amount and the proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, having reference about the order of the First Respondent in his proceedings No.29100/2008 dated 4.9.2008 which is not communicated to him and the same compelled the Petitioner to approach the Respondent to get the copy of the same and even after further representation sent by the Petitioner on 10.12.2008, the Petitioner was not able to get the copy of the order dated 4.9.2008 but the impugned order came to be passed demanding recovery of arrears and the Petitioner was insisted to make payment and the Petitioner is hence constrained to approach this Court for the reliefs above referred to. 4. According to the Petitioner, the demand Notice which is impugned herein which is in pursuance of the order dated 15.4.2008 referred to in para 5 of page 3 of the Counter made by the order of District Collector, is not communicated to the Petitioner and on the failure of the Respondents to duly communicate the final order of the First Respondent dated 15.4.2008, the Petitioner is deprived of its opportunity to challenge the correctness of the same before the Appropriate Authority. However, as the Respondents have further proceeded to invoke the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the arrears under dispute. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would argue that the impugned Recovery proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, is initiated only after duly passing the final order of the First Respondent and after duly intimating the same to the Petitioner and after giving opportunity to the Petitioner to comply with the demand. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader is not able to finish the particulars regarding the date on which it is communicated and no document is produced on the side of the Respondents to prove the impugned final order passed by the District Collector is duly communicated and received by the Petitioner. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader is not able to finish the particulars regarding the date on which it is communicated and no document is produced on the side of the Respondents to prove the impugned final order passed by the District Collector is duly communicated and received by the Petitioner. On such failure of the Respondents, this Court is constrained to accept the Petitioner’s contention that the order of the District Collector which is the basis for the demand impugned herein is not at all conveyed to the Petitioner. If that is so, the Petitioner has no occasion to challenge it by way of statutory Appeal and the Respondents cannot be permitted to say that the Writ Petition is not maintainable without his exhausting the statutory Appeal remedy against the order of the District Collector. On the other hand, this Court finds much force in the contention raised on the side of the Petitioner that unless or otherwise the copies of the order of First Respondent is served on the Petitioner and until and unless the liability of the Petitioner to pay deficit Stamp duty and penalty is fixed and quantified in the order so passed the question of invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the same does not arise herein. 6. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also represented before this Court that in the event of the Petitioner being duly served with the copy of the order dated 15.4.2008, he is ready to avail the alternative statutory remedy and till such time the Recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance. The learned Additional Government Pleader has no serious objection to adopt such a course and agree to send a fresh copy of the order to the Petitioner. 7. In view of such submissions made on either side, the impugned proceedings dated 20.1.2009, under Memo No.1714/09/A1, is set aside and the First Respondent is directed to send to the Petitioner the copy of the final order passed by him in his proceedings No.II/B/2008, dated 15.4.2008, the copy of which is now produced herein, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the Petitioner is permitted to prefer the Statutory remedy available to him against such order within a statutory period thereafter. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.