JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

Writ-C No.30548 of 2008 was filed with a prayer that the notice dated 5.5.2008 which was issued by the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar and the letter dated 11.1.2008 which was issued by the respondent no.3-Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar be quashed.

2. The notice which was served upon the petitioner was a notice under sections 17, 27, 33, 40, 47-A and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The notice was to the effect that the document i.e. the lease deed which was executed by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation-respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSIDC") on 17.12.2007 had not stated about certain properties which were leased out to the petitioner and, therefore, as per the notice there was a shortage of stamp duty to the extent of Rs.74,08,000/-. The petitioner was required to appear on 4.6.2008 and was required to place before the Stamp Authorities its version. Apparently, the notice was based upon an inspection report of the Sub-Registrar of the Registration Department dated 11.1.2008. When the writ petition was filed, an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.7.2008. The same is being reproduced here as under :-

"1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh in support of this petition. Sri Goswami appears for Respondents no.1, 2 and 3. Sri Mahesh Narain Singh appears for Respondent no.4. Sri V.K. Singh states that he will file reply to the notice which the petitioner has received.

2. Matter to stand over to 30.7.2008."

3. As per the order, the petitioner was required to file a reply to the notice which was challenged in the writ petition.

4. When on 5.12.2017 a citation to appear was issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. the Tehsildar, Gautam Budh Nagar for depositing Rs.1,48,16,000/-as deficient stamp duty, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.61914 of 2017 for quashing of the citation dated 5.12.2017 and for the quashing of the recovery certificate which was issued earlier by the Collector on 10.11.2017. The petitioner also had sought the quashing of the order dated 28.8.2017 which was the order of the Collector under section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The complete copy of this order was brought on record by a Supplementary Affidavit dated 28.9.2022. The Writ-C No.61914 of 2017 was entertained by this Court and order dated 21.12.2017 was passed which is being reproduced here as under :-

"Connect with Writ C No.30548/2008.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, who may file counter affidavits within a month. Rejoinder if any, within two weeks thereafter.

List in the week commencing 12.3.2018.

Till the next date of listing, the recovery proceedings pursuant to citation dated 5.12.2017, shall remain stayed, provided the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the entire deficiency with upto-date-interest, before the Collector concerned within 2 months from today. Previous deposit, if any, shall stand adjusted.

However, in the event of default, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated."

5. Thereafter, affidavits between the parties were exchanged. However, since the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the High Court had directed by its order dated 21.12.2017 to deposit 1/3rd of the entire amount of deficiency as was found by the Stamp Authorities, the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3465 of 2018. The Supreme Court in the SLP refused to interfere but directed the petitioner to bring on record all the Government Orders before the High Court which it was producing before the Supreme Court and the SLP was finally disposed of. While disposing the SLP, the amount which was directed to be deposited by the petitioner was deferred. The order of the Supreme Court is being reproduced here as under :-

"Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited our reference to the Government Order dated 06.07.2