ORDER 1. Challenging the order-dated 11.4.2000 – Annexure P/1 issued by Municipal Corporation Singrauli, fixing the ‘annual letting value’ of the property in question at 7.5% of the premium; and, the order-dated 16.5.1997 - Annexure A/17 passed by the State Government approving the same, this writ petition is filed. 2. Facts in brief go to show that both the petitioners are businessmen and residents of Singrauli. It is stated that certain land were available in Waidhan Town and the Municipal Corporation – respondent No.1 issued an advertisement vide Annexure P/2, on 20.12.1996, advertising for auctioning two plots – one measuring 10544 square feet, near State Bank of India and was earmarked for construction of a Hotel; the another plot measuring 2555 square feet, that was to be used for construction of Sulabh Complex in Waidhan. Various terms and conditions were fixed in the advertisement – Annexure P/2 and it is stated that the important condition in the advertisement relevant for this writ petition is that the ‘annual letting value of the land’ was shown to be 2% of the premium amount. That apart, conditions No. 13 and 14 contemplated that the respondents have power to amend the rules and procedure for letting of the land and right to amend the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Petitioners submitted an offer indicating the bid for a premium of Rs. 14 Lacs, the same was accepted and an advance of Rs. 3.5 Lacs was deposited by them. Subsequently, the entire amount of Rs.14 Lacs has been deposited by them and documents evidencing these facts are also filed. According to the petitioners, they offered a premium of Rs. 14 Lacs taking note of the fact that the annual letting value of the property was shown to be only 2%. Now, in an illegal manner it is stated that the annual letting value at 7.5% is being demanded, which is unsustainable. Petitioners have brought on record various communications to show that they kept on representing and it was only on 3.4.2000, after various communications, that the lease agreement was signed vide Annexure P/5. 3. Now, in an illegal manner it is stated that the annual letting value at 7.5% is being demanded, which is unsustainable. Petitioners have brought on record various communications to show that they kept on representing and it was only on 3.4.2000, after various communications, that the lease agreement was signed vide Annexure P/5. 3. It is stated by the petitioners in the petition that when the agreement – Annexure P/5 was signed by them, various places were left blank and petitioners signed the agreement under the hope that all the blanks will be filled up in accordance to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement. According to the petitioners as per the premium offered by them, at the rate of 2%, of the same, the annual letting value of the land would come Rs. 28,000/-, but by indicating the annual letting value at 7.5%, the annual letting value for three years is being demanded at Rs. 1,05,000/-. Accordingly, contending that in an illegal manner the annual letting value has been fixed at 7.5%, contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement and without notice to the petitioners, this writ petition has been filed. 4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, Shri N.S. Ruprah submitted that once in the advertisement it was clearly indicated that the rent of land would be 2% of the premium amount, increasing the rent from 2% to 7.5% contrary to the terms of the agreement is impermissible. That apart, learned counsel submits that under Rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachnaon Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1975’), it is stipulated that the lease/ground rent shall be 2% of the premium in case of “authority land”; and, 6.5% of the premium in case of “Government or Nazul plot”. It is seen that in the present case, the plot in question is an authority plot and in view of the provisions of Rule 47, of the Rules of 1975, demanding 7.5% rent of the premium is contrary to the statutory rules and, therefore, is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioners that the annual rent demanded at 7.5% is unsustainable for the grounds indicated hereinabove and challenge is made to the impugned action. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioners that the annual rent demanded at 7.5% is unsustainable for the grounds indicated hereinabove and challenge is made to the impugned action. In support of his contention, learned counsel took me through various communications available on record to say that the correspondence and the documents filed by him as contained in Annexures P/11, P/12; and, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16.12.1985 would show that the land is authority land as it belongs to the SADA, Singrauli and, therefore, premium at the rate of 2% can only be charged. 5. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through the documents and material available on record, lease-agreement– Annexure P/5, and emphasized that the agreement has been obtained by mis-representation, blanks have been filled up without notice to the petitioners and, therefore, the entire action is unsustainable. 6. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, refuted the aforesaid and submitted that the annual letting value has been fixed in accordance to the mandate of the provisions of law applicable and as under section 80 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, any auction or transaction more than Rs. 5 Lacs is to be approved by the State Government. It is stated that the State Government has acted in accordance to the requirement of law and no error has been committed. Referring to the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immoveable Property) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1994’), learned counsel for the State argued that in the present case the annual letting value has been fixed by the State Government in accordance to the provisions of Chapter 4(1) of the MP Revenue Book Circular, and as the action is taken in accordance with law, no interference is called for. 7. As far as mis-representation in the matter by filling up of the blanks and not indicating the annual letting value in the agreement –Annexure P/5 is concerned, Shri S.S. Bisen submits that the agreement Annexure P/5 was executed on 3.4.2000, it is a registered document, registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Sidhi and no document would be registered unless it is properly stamped and all the details are indicated therein. Contending that the petitioners’ contention is an afterthough, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Contending that the petitioners’ contention is an afterthough, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. As far as the land being authority land as contemplated under the Rules of 1975 is concerned, Shri S.S. Bisen argued that the reference to authority land in the Rules of 1975 relates to land which is held by authority namely a development authority, as defined under section 76-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adhiniyam of 1973’); namely a Special Area Development Authority or any other statutory authority, and a Municipal Corporation constituted under the MP Municipal Corporation Act is not an authority and, therefore, the land held by the Municipal Corporation is not an authority land. It is stated that authority land would be a land held by the Town and Country Planning Development Authority, the Special Area Development Authority or the Town Improvement Trust. As far as the land in question is concerned, learned counsel argues that earlier the area was under the control of the Special Area Development Authority, Singrauli, but after dissolution of the Special Area Development Authority, Singrauli and after creation of the Municipal Corporation at Singrauli, the advertisement is issued by the Municipal Corporation and all the land held by the Municipal Corporation is nazul land, as contemplated under the MP Revenue Book Circular and as the annual letting value is fixed in accordance to the said provision, Shri S.S. Bisen submits that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is unsustainable. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 10. Before dealing with the question on merits, it is thought appropriate to first examine as to who is the owner of the land; who has transferred the land and between whom the transaction in question and the agreement has been entered into, as this question is necessary for determining as to whether the land is an “authority land”, as canvassed by Shri N.S. Ruprah; or a “nazul land”, as stated by the State Government? 11. Admittedly, the advertisement in question for auctioning of the land is issued by the Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Singrauli and the agreement in question – Annexure P/5 is also entered into between the petitioners and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Singrauli. 11. Admittedly, the advertisement in question for auctioning of the land is issued by the Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Singrauli and the agreement in question – Annexure P/5 is also entered into between the petitioners and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Singrauli. Municipal Corporation, Singrauli has been established under the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and according to Shri S.S. Bisen before creation of the Corporation, the Special Area Development Authority, Singrauli was in existence. A Development Authority is defined in section 76-A of the Adhiniyam of 1973; and, the Special Area Development Authority, Singrauli is an authority as defined under section 76-A of the Adhiniyam of 1973. 12. In the Rules of 1975, reference is made to two types of land: one is authority land; and, the second is government/nazul land or plot. An authority under this Rules of 1975 is defined as an authority namely the Town and Country Planning Development Authority and Rules 3 and 4 contemplate that no government land vested or managed by the authority shall be transferred except with the general or special sanction of the State Government and further Rule 4 contemplates that all other land, which is called as authority land, shall be transferred by the authority in accordance to the procedure contemplates therein. It is, therefore, clear that under the Rules of 1975, a government/nazul land is different and a land which is neither a government land or nazul land, but which is in the possession of the statutory authority is an authority land. Admittedly, in the present case, the land in question is not in the control or possession of any authority like the Town and Country Planning Development Authority as defined in section 2-A of the Rules of 1975 or under section 76-A of the Adhiniyam of 1973. That being so, it would be a government land and under Chapter 4(1) of the MP Revenue Book Circular, land held by a Municipal Corporation, a Municipality is deemed to be a nazul land under the authority of the Municipal Corporation or the Municipality as the case may be. That being so, it would be a government land and under Chapter 4(1) of the MP Revenue Book Circular, land held by a Municipal Corporation, a Municipality is deemed to be a nazul land under the authority of the Municipal Corporation or the Municipality as the case may be. In the Revenue Book Circular, detailed provision is made with regard to what is a nazul land and all land coming within the control of or the jurisdiction of a Municipal Corporation is treated to be a nazul land, transferred by the State Government to the Municipal Corporation or the Council as the case may be. That being so, the first contention of Shri N.S. Ruprah to the effect that the land in question is an authority land cannot be accepted and has to be rejected. 13. Instead, the land has to be treated as a nazul land in the custody of Municipal Corporation, Singrauli. Reference made to various awards and orders executed with the Special Area Development Authority are all of a period prior to 1984-85, when the Special Area Development Authority, Singrauli was in existence and at that point of time as the land was vested with the said authority i.e… the Special Area Development Authority, the land could come within the purview of authority land, but once Singrauli Development Authority is dissolved and Municipal Corporation, Singrauli has been created, the land can no more be termed as authority land, instead it becomes a Municipal Nazul land. 14. Once it is held by this Court that the land in question is a nazul land, then in accordance to the provisions of the circular issued by the Government of MP, Department of Revenue dated 1.1.1992, in accordance to Chapter 4(1) of the MP Revenue Book Circular, various rates have been fixed for grant of lease and transfer of land and the rate fixed for annual letting value for a land belonging to a Municipal Corporation is shown to be 7.5% of the premium. It is, therefore, clear that vide order-dated 16.5.1997 – Annexure A/17, the annual letting value has been fixed by the State Government in accordance to the aforesaid circular and this is being demanded now from the petitioners. 15. It is, therefore, clear that vide order-dated 16.5.1997 – Annexure A/17, the annual letting value has been fixed by the State Government in accordance to the aforesaid circular and this is being demanded now from the petitioners. 15. Under section 80 read with the provisions of MP Municipal Corporation Transfer of Immoveable Property Rules, 1974, no transfer of land by auction above a particular value can be done without approval of the State Government and the State is given power to approve the transfer on certain terms and conditions. 16. In this case, after the auction was done, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Corporation for transfer of the land, the resolution went to the State Government and the State Government approved the transfer subject to condition of recovery of annual letting value in accordance to the requirement of Chapter 4(1) of the MP Revenue Book Circular and the guidelines contained in its communication/circular No.6/16/91 dated 1.1.192, wherein the annual letting value is fixed at 7.5% for this nature of land. That being so, the State Government has instructed the Municipal Corporation to collect the annual letting value in accordance to the requirement of law and in doing so, no error has been committed. 17. Merely because in the advertisement, the annual letting value is shown as 2%, the action of the respondents cannot be quashed, because the statutory provision gives the State Government power to fix the annual letting value and the State Government having fixed the same at 7.5%, the approval granted is by the State Government on such consideration and it is binding on the petitioners. 18. 18. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners had accepted the conditions of the advertisement – Annexure P/1 and quoted the annual letting value on the basis of the stipulation in the advertisement, but the records show that the advertisement was issued on 20.12.1996, petitioners submitted their bid in the year 1996 itself and thereafter when the resolution of the Municipal Corporation was sent to the Government, the correspondence available on record as Annexures R/1/3, R/1/4 dated 4.8.1997 and 27.11.1997 and various other documents available, goes to show that after the State Government granted approval by fixing the annual letting value at 7.5%, various correspondences took place in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 between the parties and during all this period the Municipal Corporation had been informing the petitioners about the fixation of annual letting value by the State Government at 7.5% and has been demanding the annual letting value for the year 1997-98 to 1999- 2000 at Rs. 1,05,000/-. It is, therefore, a case where from the year 1997 till signing of the agreement on 3.4.2000, petitioner was all along informed about fixation of the annual letting value at 7.5% and the petitioner knowing the same fully well, executed the agreement – Annexure P/5 on 3.4.2000, wherein the annual letting value was fixed at 7.5% of the premium amount, as is evident from paragraph 2 of the agreement –Annexure P/5. 19. It is, therefore, a case where even though in the advertisement – Annexure P/1 the annual letting value is shown to be 2%, but before signing of the agreement – Annexure P/5, for a period of about 3 years, various correspondence had taken place and the delay in signing of the agreement was only because the petitioners were not agreeing to the same and ultimately when the agreement was executed on 3.4.2000, petitioners agreed to fixing of the annual letting value at 7.5% and did not object to the same. The petitioners having entered into an agreement and having accepted the fixation of the annual letting value at 7.5% cannot now say that fixation of the annual letting value, contrary to the advertisement – Annexure P/2, is unsustainable. The petitioners having entered into an agreement and having accepted the fixation of the annual letting value at 7.5% cannot now say that fixation of the annual letting value, contrary to the advertisement – Annexure P/2, is unsustainable. Even after stipulating the annual letting value at 2% in the advertisement before the actual agreement was being signed, petitioners were made aware of the change in the annual letting value and before execution of the agreement on 3.4.2000, petitioners knew the change and by executing the agreement, they accepted it and, therefore, now they cannot make any complaint in this regard. 20. As far as the complaint made by the petitioners with regard to the agreement being left blank and petitioners being mis-represented are concerned, the same is nothing but an after-thought. The agreement is a registered document, it is registered with the Registrar, Sidhi on 3.4.2000 and once the document is a registered document, a presumption has to be made that the document was complete in all respects, there was no defect in the document and the Registrar permitted registration of the document only after all requirements under law was complied with. 21. That apart, after the agreement was registered on 3.4.2000, there is no complaint or representation by the petitioners indicating that the agreement has been got executed by fraud. On the contrary, it is only for the first time when the legal notice was sent to the petitioners on 5.5.2000 – Annexure P/8 that they came out with a case that they have signed in a blank agreement. The story put forth by the petitioners with regard to the agreement being not filled and blank space being left is nothing but an after-thought and it cannot be believed. Even otherwise, as the annual letting value is fixed in accordance with the requirement of the statutory Rules, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners. 22. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no ground made out for interference, the petition is dismissed.