pvr １ WP210-05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 2005 The Indian Hume Pipe Co.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The Tehsildar, Recovery Cell. And others. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.Bharucha i/b. Ms.Jeenal Lakhabhai, for petitioner. Mr.J.S.Saluja, for Respondents 1 to 3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 20th October,2011. P.C.:- 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the undated notice which is received on 4.1.2005 by the petitioner, demanding from the pvr ２ WP210-05 petitioner an amount of Rs.1,26,74,160/-. The notice has been issued by Respondent no.1 under the provisions of Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Perusal of the provisions of Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code shows that under that provision only arrears of land revenue can be demanded. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the amount demanded by the notice does not represent the arrears of land revenue. The learned Counsel submits that that amount tallies with the amount that is claimed as due by Respondent no.2 in the arbitration proceedings which ultimately culminated into an Award in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that not only that the amount which is claimed in the demand notice is not due from the petitioner to the State Government as arrears of land revenue but that amount is also not due to the respondent no.2-State of Madhya Pradesh from the petitioner. The claim of the State of Madhya Pradesh made in pvr ３ WP210-05 the arbitration proceedings for recovery of that amount from the petitioner has been considered by the Arbitrator and ultimately the Arbitrator has found that some amount is payable to the petitioner by respondent no.2. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents informed us that that Award has been challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion, the question  whether that amount is claimed in the arbitration proceedings by the State of Madhya Pradesh, whether that claim has been accepted or rejected by the Arbitrator , is totally irrelevant in the present petition. The only question that falls for consideration in this petition is  whether the aforesaid amount can be demanded by respondent no.1 from the petitioner under the provisions of Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Under the provisions of Section 267 of the Act, only pvr ４ WP210-05 arrears of land revenue and sums which are recoverable as arrears of land revenue can be demanded. The case of the petitioner is that this amount is not recoverable from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. This statement has not been denied by the respondents by filing any affidavit in reply. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents pointed out to us that the notice has been issued by Respondent no.1 because he has received a letter from the officer of respondent no.2 to recover the amount. Though, the letter was produced before us, it is not legible. In any case, it does not appear that the amount which is mentioned in the letter, even according to the author of that letter, is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 3. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no option but to set aside the demand notice. In the result, therefore, the petition pvr ５ WP210-05 succeeds and is allowed. Rule in the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)