JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das assisted by Sri Amit Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. When the State of Uttar Pradesh had incorporated the Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Authority") under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Area Act, 1976 for the development of a project by which a six-lane 160 kms. expressway was to be laid down, the petitioner, which is a private developer, was transferred certain land, connecting NOIDA and Agra on the virgin area along the Yamuna river. When the transfer took place of the land from the Authority to the petitioner, agreements were entered into and as per the Government Order dated 27.2.2003, the agreements were executed on a stamp of Rs.100/-. The Government, to see that private enterprise was encouraged, had on 18.2.2003 issued a circular and had desired in principle that all transactions, for public projects, above the value of Rs. 750 crore were not to be stamped. In pursuance thereof when in favour of the petitioner 14 instruments were executed between 28.2.2003 and 21.7.2003, no stamp duty was paid. On 13.8.2004, however 14 separate notices for the 14 separate instruments were issued for deficiency of stamps. These can be found at Annexure-18 of the writ petition, from Page Nos. 169 to 183. The petitioner challenged these notices along with the Government Order dated 30.8.2003 which had stated in so many words that till such time as there was a gazette notification u/s 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty had to be paid on all transactions. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition basing its claim on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

3. The petitioner in the writ petition had stated that since the Government in principle had agreed that all private developers who were a part of the Taj Expressway Project were to be given the exemption from the depositing of the stamp duty, the Government Order dated 30.8.2003 could not be issued. The petitioner, therefore, had prayed that the notices dated 13.8.2004 be quashed and also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 30.8.2003. In the meantime, while the writ petition was pending, the stamp authority (A.D.M. of Finance & Revenue) on 13.10.2006 passed orders upholding the demand as was made in the notices and therefore the order dated 13.10.2006 was also challenged. In the writ petition there was also a prayer for a command to the respondents that they may provide, as per the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, the advantages to the petitioner which were flowing out of the circulars of the Government Order dated 28.2.2003 and 10.4.2003.

4. From the record, we find that during the pendency of the writ petition by a gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification that if there was an investment of Rs.750 crores or more and the project was in the public interest and if no remission etc. of the stamp duty had already been availed, then no stamp duty would be leviable. This Government notification which was dated 17.11.2007 was applied retrospectively and was made effective from 13.02.2003. The government notification which was gazetted on 17.11.2007 is being reproduced herein below:-

"The Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of the Government notification no.K.N.5-4513(1)/11-2007- 500(22)-2003 dated November 17, 2007 for general information:

No. K.N.S.5-4513(1)/11-2007-500(22)-2003 Lucknow,

Dated November 17, 2007

In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act no. 02 of 1899) as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, the Governor with a view to