Judgment :- 1. The sale deed presented by the petitioner before the Registering Authority was registered on 10.10.2002. However, he was informed that the document was insufficiently stamped and he was served with Form I notice as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 12.11.2002. It is stated that the petitioner had also given his explanation. Thereafter, no orders were passed and the sale deed was also not released. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P. No. 36416 of 2007 and this Court, while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 30.03.2010, had directed that if the authority, under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, had already passed an order, the same should be communicated as per Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the validity of the said order in the manner known to law. Inspite of such a direction having been issued by this Court, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not communicated any order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act and it is not known as to whether such an order has been passed at all. However, the 1st respondent has now passed impugned order on 16.06.2010 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,83,504/- stated to be the deficit stamp duty payable in respect of the document of the petitioner along with a sum of Rs. 8,12,280/- towards interest failing which steps will be taken under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the said amount. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid Rs.4,83,504/- and the Registering Authority, as per the orders of this Court, has also released the document in question. However, the petitioner has not paid Rs.8,12,280/- towards interest and the impugned order of the 1st respondent, insofar as the interest portion is concerned, is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he has not been informed, even as on date, as to whether any final order has been passed by the 1st respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the said Act. According to the petitioner, there are provisions under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which prescribe the mode of communication of the orders passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act. When the learned Special Government Pleader was requested to find out whether any order had been passed, he would submit that in fact, the authority, under Section 47-A(1) of the Act had passed final orders on 16.04.2003 itself. However, as far as the mode of communication of the said order is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the same had been communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post or by any one of the modes prescribed under the Rules. Except a note that the said order had been despatched, there is no other evidence available on record to show that the order had been duly communicated as provided under the Rules. 3. It is rather unfortunate that inspite of the earlier order passed by this Court directing the 1st respondent to communicate the final order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act in the manner known to law, the same has not been complied with thereby depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to approach the Appellate Authority to question the correctness or otherwise of the said order. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the manner in which the notices and orders passed under the Indian Stamp Act have to be served and Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 enumerates the manner of such service and it reads as hereunder: "15. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the manner in which the notices and orders passed under the Indian Stamp Act have to be served and Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 enumerates the manner of such service and it reads as hereunder: "15. Manner of service of notice and orders to the parties:- Any notice under rule 4 or order under rule 4 or 7 shall be served in the following manner, namely:- (a) in the case of any company, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, be served - (i) on the secretary or any director or other principal officer of the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be; or (ii) by leaving it or sending it by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be at the registered office, or if there is no registered office, then at the place where the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be, carries on business. (b) in the case of any firm, be served- (i) upon any one or more of the partners; or (ii) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on, upon any person having control or management of the partnership business at the time of service. (c) in the case of a family, be served upon the person in management of such family or of the property of such family, in the manner specified in clause (d). (d) in the case of an individual person, be served - (i) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or his Counsel or authorised agent; or (ii) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or (iii) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post acknowledgment due; or (iv) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned." 4. In the case on hand, though the final order is stated to have been passed by the 1st respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Act as early as on 16.04.2003, the same was not served on the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,12,280/- towards interest, at this stage, cannot be sustained. When the valuable right of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority has been obstructed by the 1st respondent by not serving the copy of the order, it is certainly not open to the 1st respondent to demand interest. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, insofar as it relates to payment of interest of Rs.8,12,280/- is set aside . The 1st respondent is directed to communicate the order stated to have been passed by him under Section 47-A(1) of the said Act on 16.04.2003 as per the mode of service prescribed under Rule 15(d) of the above said Rules within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after such service is effected in accordance with law, the petitioner is entitled to file the statutory appeal to the Inspector General of Registration under Section 47-A(5) of the Act within the time stipulated under the Act. It is made clear that on receipt of the copy of the order, if the appeal is filed by the petitioner to the Appellate authority within the statutory limitation period, the Appellate Authority shall receive the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.