RAMCHANDRA THAWANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of M.P. No. 2265/93 (Arjunlal and others v. State of M.P. and others) and M.P. No. 2787/93 (Dhruv Kumar Basadia v. State of M.P. and another).

(2.) EACH of the petitioner has submitted before the Court that neither proper opportunity was given to the petitioner nor under the authority of law the State has fixed the premium or has demanded the amount of premium and revenue. According to each of the petitioner they had approached. by way of representations to the Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The petitioners had submitted before the Commissioner that as they came to know about the order a little late they were entitled to be heard on merits. The Additional Commissioner by the impugned order has refused to condone the delay and has dismissed the representations.

(3.) IN last six years despite opportunities, the State has not filed any return to justify the demand of premium and rent and fixation of the same.