Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75707 Reserved on 5.5.2025 Delivered on 09.5.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13451 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashi Nandan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Sinha, Sr. Adv. & Mr. Rohan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mr. Manish Goel, AAG, Mr.

Jagat Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Khanna, Sr. Adv.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Agarwal, Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Mr. Varad Nath, Mr. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Prakhar Gupta and Mr. Pranay Kumar, for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. A.K. Goyal, learned ACSC for State – respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Jagat Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Mr. Shivashish Dwivedi, Mr. Devna Soni, Ms. Yasvi Bajpai and Mr. T. Islam for respondent no. 4.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to sine-die adjourn the stamp recovery proceedings bearing Stamp Case No. D202211270001599 pending before the Court of Collector / District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to await the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in OMP (Comm.) 450 / 2023 and Arb A (Comm) 45/2023 and the final arbitral award by the Arbitral Tribunal, who are already seized of the very same issue being considered by the Ld.

Collector; or b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned stamp recovery proceedings bearing Stamp Case No. D202211270001599 pending before the Court of Collector / District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar;

c. Pass any other order / orders or direction / directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State-respondent nos. 1 to 3 raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. He further submits that a mandamus is sought directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 appears to be misconceived on the pleading made in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition as neither any copy of the representation has been annexed along with the writ petition nor any pleading has been made for representing the respondents for which the mandamus is sought. He further submits that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of UP and Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of UP, respectively. He further submits that stamp cases are not govern by the revenue department, therefore, no such order can be passed as prayed in prayer no. a. He further submits that prayer no. b is also misconceived as from the pleadings itself shows that the petitioner is aggrieved by the notices but same are not under challeng; when the notices, itself are not under challenged, relief no. b cannot be accorded to the petitioner. He further submits that it is simple show cause notices to which the petitioner has already submitted detailed reply, copies of which have been annexed along with the writ petition. He further submits that if any order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the same under the Stamp Act but as on today, the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Mr. Jagat Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 also raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition and submits that the petitioner ha