Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner (opposite party in appeal) has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.11.2014 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2011) State of U.P. v. Competent Authority (Evacuee Property), Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2011, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (the Act), impounding the instrument, directing the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty.

2. Facts giving rise to the petition briefly is that the petitioner purchased 2/5th share admeasuring 10,040 square metre, part of Khasra No. 1536 of Khewat No. 1/1 and 3 of Mahal Umar Daraj Ali Khan vide instrument No. 8470 of 2001 dated 11.10.2001 for Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- was paid as stamp duty on the instrument.

3. Petitioner filed an application before the competent authority/Board of Revenue for separation of 2/5th portion from the evacuee property belonging to Umar Daraj Ali Khan.

4. The competent authority on 27.10.2010 directed for partition of the composite property and separating 2/5th share of the petitioner which was not part of the evacuee property.

5. The order dated 27.10.2010 was subjected to challenge in appeal under Section 14 of Evacuee Interest (Separation Act) 1951 by the State of U.P through Collector, before the District Judge, Lucknow.

6. The appellant(State) filed an application on 31.3.2011 requesting the Court to impound the instrument i.e sale deed dated 11.10.2001, and until duly stamped, the instrument may not be not read in evidence.

7. In the meantime, proceedings was instituted under Section 33/38/47-A/40-B of the Act, being case No. 01/11-12, purported to have been instituted on a complaint filed by one Shri Kant Tyagi.

8. The Additional Collector (F&R) Muzaffarnagar, by order dated 15.7.2011, discharged the notice on the ground of limitation. The relevant fact to be noticed is that the complaint is dated 1.4.2011, notice was issued on the same day i.e on 1.4.2011 requiring the petitioner to appear on 19.4.2011, the order discharging the notices was passed on 15.7.2011. It appears that the proceedings was initiated under the Act, at the behest of the petitioner, in order to take a plea in the pending appeal that the question regarding deficiency of stamp had attained finality.

9. The petitioner opposed the application, the application of the appellant State to impound the instrument, stating that proceedings under Section 33/47-A of the Act cannot be initiated after lapse of 8 years, the instrument was executed on 11.10.2001, order passed on 27.10.2010 i.e beyond the period of limitation, hence the instrument cannot be impounded, further it was averred that no objection was raised regarding the deficiency of stamp duty before the competent authority/Board of Revenue, the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage.

10. Objections raised by the petitioner was rebutted by the State/appellant stating that the petitioner had not disclosed in the instrument, the valuation of the property, and the stamp duty payable thereon, which came to light only after the order dated 27.10.2010, passed in ex parte proceedings, further the property is situated in a posh locality, Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, minimum value (circle rate) at the time of execution of the deed was fixed at Rs.6000/- per square metre, accordingly, the value of the property was at Rs.6,02,40,000.00, the stamp duty payable was at Rs.60,14,000.00, whereas, the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- towards duty. The question of limitation will not arise as the instrument came to notice only after the order dated 27.10.2010. The appellant’s restoration application to recall the order dated 27.10.2010 was dismissed by the competent authority, the Board of Revenue on 17.2.2011, thereafter, Commissioner was appointed for separation of the alleged interest of the petitioner, which was not identifiable on the spot, the name of the State was mutated since long in the