- (1.) Mr. Sahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Municipal Corporation has wrongly calculated the demand as contained in letter no. 1247 dated 15/05/2010 as the petitioner is in possession on only 300 sq. ft. and not 40% of the land.
(2.) It appears from the impugned demand that the petitioner and his brother Panna Lal Tiwaryrespondent no. 3 use to deposit the municipal dues jointly up to 20072008.
(3.) Thereafter, on the basis of the partition document submitted by them, the municipal dues was proportionately demanded from respondent no. 3 and the petitioner in the ratio 60% : 40% respectively.;