Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—In view of the order of this Court dated 28th July, 2011, the Stamp Reporter has submitted a fresh report dated 3rd August, 2011. It has been recorded therein that in view of the order of the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice dated 27th May, 2010, this petition is now cognizable by a Single Judge.

2. Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate Assisted by Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed by a construction company duly incorporated under the Companies Act.

4. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows:

Certain land was acquired by the State Government in the district of Ghaziabad and was transferred to Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (for short ‘UPSIDC’), which is a statutory corporation created under U.P. State Industrial Development Area Act. UPSIDC inturn is stated to have issued a letter of allotment of 87.10 acres of undeveloped land in favour of the petitioner-company for developing a housing colonies in the housing Sector of Tronica City, Ghaziabad. In terms of the letter of allotment, a memorandum has also been executed between the UPSIDC and the petitioner-company on 7th July, 1997. The said document was transcribed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 50/- only and was not registered.

5. By means of the notice dated 25th August, 2003, Project Officer of UPSIDC informed the petitioner-company that the memorandum executed between the petitioner-company and UPSIDC was liable to be registered and stamp duty was liable to be paid thereon treating the same to be a lease-deed. This letter of the Project Officer was subjected to challenge by the petitioner by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45017 of 2003, wherein no interim order was granted and the writ petition remained pending.

6. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) in exercise of powers under Sections 33 and 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 350 of Indian Stamp Rules, issued a notice informing the petitioner that prima facie stamp duty to Rs. 2,82,52,235/- was payable on the memorandum. The petitioner-company may, therefore, appear and show-cause as to why such deficiency in the stamp duty be not raised alongwith penalty and interest. It is against this show-cause notice that this second writ petition has been filed.

7. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended before this Court that the proceedings initiated under Sections 33 and 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act in terms of the notice are bad for following reasons:

(a) the memorandum was executed in the year 1997 when present notice has only been issued in the year 2003 i.e. after more than four years of the period prescribed under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, and therefore, bad

(b) memorandum executed between the petitioner-company and UPSIDC does not answers the description of lease,

(c) provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended in the year 1998 and thereafter in the year 2002 are prospective in nature and shall have no application on the deed which was executed in the year 1997.

8. Reference has also been made to the interim order, which has been made to the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73277 of 2010, which has been decided in the open Court but could not be completed because of time prayed by the learned Standing Counsel for informing the Court as to what action is proposed against the officers concerned, wherein this Court has held that the deed executed by the petitioner-company in favour of purchasers of the developed land/flats cannot be said to be the first transferrer of the immovable property.

9. Learned Standing Counsel in reply points out that the present writ petition is premature. It is always open tot he petitioner to raise all such objections before the authority concerned at the first instance. Issues of facts involved nee