PADMUKHO KASER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the demand notice Annexures P-1 & P-2 and the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division dismissing the petitioners' appeal which was preferred challenging the said demand.

(2.) THE facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings made by the parties are that the petitioners purchased the subject land by an unregistered instrument executed on 28.12.1949 (Annexure P-4) and continued to remain in possession on the subject land. In the year 1987 proceedings were initiated for assessment of land revenue/lease rent and thereafter the impugned notices raising demand of Nazul premium and lease rent for Rs.10,414.00 by Annexure P-1 and Rs.10,411.00 by Annexure P-2 were served upon the petitioners.

(3.) THERE is yet another reason why the petitioners contention cannot be accepted and rather the same appears to be self-defeating in as much as pursuant to the declaration and inclusion of the land in Champa Nazul town and submission of report by the Assistant Land Measurement Officer and recommending grant of lease in petitioners favour a title has been conferred upon the petitioners which was otherwise not available to them on account of instrument Annexure P-4 being an unregistered document being in the nature of transaction/transfer of land for a value of more than Rs.100.00 which is required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. If the revenue officers have decided to confer title on the petitioners and at the same time, charging some premium and the lease rent on them, their prayer for quashment of the demand is not tenable in law.