JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned R.R.C. dated 18-10-2005 (Annexure P-7) which is issued against the petitioner for Rs. 10,07,000/- by the Tehsildar, Burhanpur. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated, for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that, the petitioner is a retail outlet dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (respondent No. 6) (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) and carrying on the business at Burhanpur. A land on lease upon which the petrol pump is established by the petitioner was granted by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 6 (Corporation). The petitioner is only a retail outlet dealer. Indeed the land has been leased out by the State Government to sixth respondent (Corporation). On account of fault of respondent No. 6 for non-deposition of the lease rent and premium, a revenue case was registered by the Nazul Officer, Burhanpur. The notices were issued to sixth respondent as well as to the petitioner, however, these proceedings culminated into the order passed finally on 12-9-2002 (Annexure P-4) by the respondent No. 5. In pursuant to the aforesaid final order the impugned R.R.C. Annexure P-7 has been issued in the name of the petitioner who is a retail outlet dealer. Indeed, this R.R.C. has been challenged by the petitioner. 2. The contention of Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly, the first petitioner is only a retail outlet dealer and it had nothing to do with the land, since it has been leased out to the sixth respondent by the State Government and the status of respondent No. 6 is that of lessee. The status of the petitioners is only to carry out business affairs of selling the petrol and other petroleum products. Thus, he is not at all required to pay any sum of amount demanded in the R.R.C. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed and R.R.C. Annexure P-7 issued against the petitioner be quashed by issuing writ of mandamus. 3. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Thus, he is not at all required to pay any sum of amount demanded in the R.R.C. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed and R.R.C. Annexure P-7 issued against the petitioner be quashed by issuing writ of mandamus. 3. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5 by inviting my attention to section 139 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (in short the Code) has submitted that in case of default by any person who is primarily liable under section 138 of the land revenue, including arrears, it shall be recovered from the person who is in possession of the land and, therefore, rightly R.R.C. has been issued against the petitioner No. 2 who is partner of petitioner No. 1, the retail outlet dealer and in possession of the land leased out to respondent No. 6. Hence, it has been prayed by her that this petition be dismissed. 4. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation by placing heavy reliance on the circular of the State Government dated 3-3-1994 whereby the State Government (Revenue Department) issued direction to all the Collectors of the State to provide the lease to the Corporation for the purpose of establishment of the petrol pump on minimum lease rent according to its terms and conditions and, therefore, in contravention to the said circular the demand has been made. Hence, it has been submitted that lease rent as well as premium which is being demanded prevailing on the market rate cannot be asked by the State Government on the basis of the order dated 27-5-2002 (Annexure P-6). He has further pointed out that once the retail outlet dealership has been given by the Corporation to the petitioner, he is liable to pay the lease rent etc. which is being realised in the form of R.R.C. (Annexure P-7). Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view, that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner No. 1 is only a retail outlet dealer and is carrying on business of selling and purchase of petrol and other products by establishing the petrol pump. Admittedly, the land upon which the petrol pump has been established by the petitioner belong to respondent No. 6 (Corporation). 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner No. 1 is only a retail outlet dealer and is carrying on business of selling and purchase of petrol and other products by establishing the petrol pump. Admittedly, the land upon which the petrol pump has been established by the petitioner belong to respondent No. 6 (Corporation). Hence, primarily it is the duty of the respondent No. 6 to deposit the lease rent as well as premium which has not been deposited by the sixth respondent, indeed the order Annexure P-6 dated 27-5-2002 has been issued against the sixth respondent, but since the petitioners are in possession of the leased out property as retail outlet dealer, the R.R.C. has been issued against them in the name of petitioner No. 2 who is the partner of M/s. Syed Khairati Meer Company (first petitioner). 7. On bare perusal of the section 137 of the Code the land revenue assessed on any land shall be first chargeable upon the land; rents and profits thereof. Under section 138 of the Code, the primary responsibility has been cast upon the person who is liable to make payment for the land revenue. It would be apposite to quote section 138 of the Code which reads thus:-- 138. Responsibility for payment of land revenue.--(1) The following person shall be primarily liable for the payment of land revenue assessed on a holding:-- (a) in a Bhumiswami's holding the Bhumiswami; (b) in a holding consisting of land leased by the State Government the lessee thereof. (2) When there are more than one Bhumiswami or lessee in a holding, all such Bhumiswami's or lessees, as the case may be, shall be jointly and severally liable to the payment of the land revenue on such holding. Admittedly, the sixth respondent is the lessee of the State Government and, therefore, firstly the land revenue should have been realised by fifth respondent from the lessee in view of the clause (b) of section 138 of the Code. Admittedly, this procedure has not been adopted. 8. To me, the land revenue can be realised from the person (like petitioner) who is in position to give it only after the procedure prescribed under section 138 is exhausted. Although there is an order dated 27-5-2002 (Annexure P-6) passed against the respondent No. 6 making a demand of Rs. 10,07,000/- but R.R.C. has been issued against the petitioners. 8. To me, the land revenue can be realised from the person (like petitioner) who is in position to give it only after the procedure prescribed under section 138 is exhausted. Although there is an order dated 27-5-2002 (Annexure P-6) passed against the respondent No. 6 making a demand of Rs. 10,07,000/- but R.R.C. has been issued against the petitioners. But the State and its functionaries are legally obliged to issue R.R.C. firstly upon the sixth respondent (Corporation). The provision of section 139 of the Code can be triggered and set in motion only when for one reason or the other, the lease rent in the shape of land revenue could not be realised from the lease holder i.e. Corporation and in that situation the person who is holding the land like petitioner lease rent in the form of land revenue can be realised. Since, the respondent No. 3 has totally deviated from this well settled procedure and had directed to issue R.R.C. only against petitioner No. 2, according to me, its action runs de hors to section 138 of the Code. Hence, I do not have any scintilla of doubt in holding that the R.R.C. issued against the petitioner No. 2 is illegal and is in contravention to section 138 of the Code. 9. So far as the contention of Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 (Corporation) is concerned, according to me, this is not the proper stage for the Corporation to raise this dispute in the petition filed by the petitioners challenging the R.R.C. issued against them. Had it been the petition on behalf of the Corporation praying to issue writ of mandamus against the State Government who had fixed the lease rent and premium in terms of the aforesaid circular dated 3-3-1994 certainly, the matter would have been different and in that petition this Court would have considered the grievance of the Corporation. Therefore, to me, such a grievance cannot be agitated by the respondent No. 6 in this petition filed by the petitioners. The sixth respondent if so advised may file necessary application before the Collector seeking a direction to comply the mandate given in the aforesaid circular dated 3-3-1994 of the State Government. Therefore, to me, such a grievance cannot be agitated by the respondent No. 6 in this petition filed by the petitioners. The sixth respondent if so advised may file necessary application before the Collector seeking a direction to comply the mandate given in the aforesaid circular dated 3-3-1994 of the State Government. This Court hopes and trust that in case sixth respondent files necessary representation to Collector, Burhanpur, certainly said authority would hear its grievance and pass necessary orders in terms of the circular dated 3-3-1994 of the State Government, if said circular otherwise not somersaulted or has been changed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned R.R.C. dated 18-10-2005 (Annexure P-7) issued against the petitioners stands quashed. Let writ of mandamus be issued. No costs.