The central legal point established is the requirement for the first respondent to communicate the appeal order to the petitioner within a specified time, enabling the petitioner to exercise the right to file an appeal as per the provision of the Stamp Act.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property located at Plot No.1429, 17th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai originally belonged to one Mrs.Gokila Ramakrishnan under whom the petitioner was a lessee from 1987 onwards. Subsequently, an agreement of sale was entered on 22.03.1995 between Mrs.Gokila Ramakrishnan and Cottage Industries Exposition Limited, the petitioner herein fixing the sale consideration at Rs.26,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/-was paid as an advance and the balance sum of Rs.16,50,000/- has to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

3. Since the amount is more than Rs.10,00,000/-it requires no objection certificate from the Income Tax department. When the petitioner as well as their vendor approached the Income Tax department, the department found fault with the sale consideration as agreed between the parties as much lower than the market value and an order was passed under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. Against which, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9062 of 1995. The said writ petition was partly allowed upholding the pre-emptive vesting of the said property in the Central Government with effect from the date of the order i.e. on 26.06.1995. However, in respect of the portion of the order directing delivery of possession of the property and consequential action of taking forcible possession was quashed.

4. By invoking Section 269 UE(2), the department directed the petitioner and its vendor to deliver vacant possession of the property. Against which, the petitioner has moved another writ petition in W.P.No.15711 of 1995 to quash the impugned direction and also for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession. The vendor of the petitioner also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2258 of 1996 questioning the action of the Income Tax department initiating under Section 269 UH(1) of the Income Tax Act. Writ Appeals were filed in respect of the portion regarding pre-emptive vesting of the said property in W.A.Nos.107 of 1996 and 1347 of 1995. Writ Petition and Writ Appeals were heard together and a common judgment was passed on 112. 2000 directing the appropriate authority to issue direction in terms of Section 269 UH(2) of Income Tax Act. Pursuant to the said direction of the Division Bench, the appropriate authorities issued "no objection certificate" permitting the vendor to sell the property in question to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.26,50,000/-. Subsequently, the sale deed came to be registered on 04.02.2002 as Document No.350 of 2002 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, namely the third respondent herein subject to Section 47(A) Reference. The matter was referred to Stamp Collector under Section 47(A)(1) Stamp Act. The second respondent, who is the authority to decide the valuation after hearing the objections of either parties, by order dated 13.02.2003, fixed the value of the property at Rs.97,67,232/- and after deducting the stamp duty already paid, the Stamp Collector directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.9,25,249/- being the deficit stamp duty. It was as against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Section 47(A)(10) of the Stamp Act and the said appeal was numbered as No.18573/NI/03.

5. According to the petitioner, the first respondent heard the objections raised by the petitioner on various grounds. Against the order of the District Revenue Officer, namely the second respondent, appeal was heard as early as 2004 and according to the petitioner, the first respondent, the appellate authority, has not passed any order till date. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction against the first respondent to transfer the records in Appeal