Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated 30th October 1998 by which he was offered Amnesty Scheme and directed to pay Rs. 5,20,000/- by way of deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- by way of penalty. It may be noted that previously the Stamp Duty Authorities had assessed the market value of the property at Rs. 22,47,80,677/- and demanded differential stamp duty of Rs. 2,28,57,942/-. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the said demand by filing Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 1998. The learned Single Judge by order dated 14.10.98 set aside the order holding that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity. In the result, the petition was allowed. Demand of stamp duty vide order dated 24.12.97 was set aside. The petitioner was permitted to invite the attention of the Government to its resolution dated 27.9.98. Consequent to the order of the High Court, the authorities passed the aforesaid order and offered benefit of amnesty scheme to the petitioner. Even that offer the petitioner challenged before this Court. 2. Learned Single Judge while admitting the petition provided as under: “Rule. By way of ad-interim order, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the scheme dated 29.7.98 with regard to the document No. 442/91 on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 5,20,250/- as demanded by the respondents without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 9.12.98. D.S. Permitted.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had tendered cheque of Rs. 5,20,250/- on 16.10.1999. However, the authorities did not accept the same treating as delayed tendering of the amount. It is an undisputed fact that the amnesty scheme was available only upto 30th November 1998 and the petitioner himself did not accept the offer under the amnesty scheme and also that though the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to tender the amount of Rs. 5,20,250/- subject to the outcome of the petition by an order dated 26.11.98, admittedly, the petitioner did not approach the Government Authorities nearly for a year. 4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot now get the benefit of amnesty scheme even after offering to pay the interest on the delayed payment. However, by virtue of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.98, the order of the Stamp Authority has been set aside. 4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot now get the benefit of amnesty scheme even after offering to pay the interest on the delayed payment. However, by virtue of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.98, the order of the Stamp Authority has been set aside. The Government has been asked to reassess the stamp duty and to take a fresh decision. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge in the order dated 14.10.98 had kept the question of applicability of the Government Resolution dated 29th July 1998 open. He, therefore, submitted that such question should be left to be judged by the Government. In the present case, however, I find that pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.98, the Government had accepted the say of the petitioner and offered him benefit of amnesty under the Government resolution. It was precisely for this reason that under order dated 30th October 1998, instead of stamp duty of more than Rs. 2 crores, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 5,20,000/- and put an end to the entire issue. It was the petitioner who was aggrieved by even such a decision and approached this Court. The Court also, once again permitted him to deposit such amount under protest subject to the outcome of the petition. This also, he did not do for nearly one year. Such tender is also not proved on record or admitted by the respondents. Even if I accept the say of the petitioner that he indeed tendered the amount under cheque dated 16.10.99, the facts remain uncontroverted that firstly such tender was only one year after the High Court permitted him to deposit the same under protest and secondly, after October 1999, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of this Court. If the petitioner was serious about availing the benefit, he should have immediately brought such facts to the notice of the Court, he could have prayed for condonation of some delay in depositing the amount. After 11 years, therefore, he can not now turn around and say that he accepts the amnesty scheme which expired on 30th November 1998. With the result, the petitioner cannot now get the benefit of amnesty scheme by paying Rs. 5,20,250/- even with interest. After 11 years, therefore, he can not now turn around and say that he accepts the amnesty scheme which expired on 30th November 1998. With the result, the petitioner cannot now get the benefit of amnesty scheme by paying Rs. 5,20,250/- even with interest. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with following directions: 1. The respondents shall reassess the valuation of the property in question as on the date of sale transaction after putting the petitioner to notice and pass appropriate order for demand of differential stamp duty if it is found that the original document was deficiently stamped. The assessment will be as on the date of sale transaction. The petitioner, however, would be liable to pay interest as provided under the law. 6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. P P P P P