The main legal point established is the requirement for the Appellate Authority to provide notice and opportunity to rectify defects in an appeal, as well as the consideration of valid reasons for delay in filing the appeal.

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. 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