The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to stamp duty exemption as they did not meet the criteria set by the Government Order, affirming the principle of reasonable classification under Article 14.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri U.K. Sexena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India.

2. This Court proceeds to deal with the writ petition concerning the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners').

3. The petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition for the following relief :

''A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.1.2018 and 13.11.2017 in pursuance of the Show-cause Notice dated 20.9.2017, 29.6.2017, 27.11.2017, 2.11.2017, 20.7.2017 and 21.8.2017 issued by the respondent No. 3.

B. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.6.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to not take any coercive action of the order dated 29.1.2018 and 13.11.2017 in pursuance of the show-cause notice 20.9.2017, 29.6.2017, 27.11.2017, 2.11.2017, 20.7.2017 and 21.8.2017.

D. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

E. Award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners.''

4. The case of the petitioners is that their land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as N.H.A.I.) under the National Highway Act, 1956 for extension of the National Highway. Petitioners were paid compensation in lieu of the acquisition of their land by the N.H.A.I.

5. The further case of the petitioners is that they have purchased agricultural land within one year from the date they had received compensation for the acquisition of their land, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.6.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary granting exemption from payment of stamp duty to those person whose land have been acquired for public purpose and who have purchased agricultural land within one year from the date of receiving compensation.

6. It is further stated that a similar benefit has been extended to the persons whose land has been acquired by the Railways for public purpose and who have purchased agricultural land within one year from the date they had received compensation for the acquisition of their land.

7. The further case of the petitioners is that in both the cases i.e. in respect to the persons covered under the Government Order dated 2.6.2011, and also in the case of acquisition of land by Railways, the purpose of the acquisition is for a public purpose, and since, the land of petitioners have been acquired for public purpose as the purpose of the acquisition was to expand the national highway, therefore, they form one class. Hence, they assert that they cannot be discriminated against and are entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of stamp duty, as in the case of persons covered under the Government Order dated 2.6.2011 or the persons whose land has been acquired by the Railways. Thus, according to petitioners, non-extending the said benefit to them amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. The further case of the petitioners is that proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') could not be initiated against the petitioners as it is not the case of the respondent-State that petitioners have not set forth the correct market value in the instrument of sale. Further, the notices issued by the Collector (Stamp) do not reflect that the Collector (Stamp) on the basis of material on record had reason to believe that the correct market value of the property has not been set forth in the sale-deed, and since, the expressio