Arun Mishra, J.

1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for relief to strike down the demand raised by Janpad Panchayat for realization of entertainment/show tax as per demand notices P/3 and P/4.

2. Petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and resides at Khurai, district Sagar. He is the sole proprietor of Hemant Talkies which exhibits films at Khurai district Sagar within the limits of Municipal Council, Khurai. Petitioner challenges the levy as also the competence of respondent No. 3 to impose and recover entertainment tax-show tax from the petitioner. Petitioner submits that in exercise of the powers conferred by M.P. Panchayat Act section 103 (Act 7 of 1962) the State Government divided the Districts into Blocks vide notification P/1 dated 7-7-1965 published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 31 July 1965, in which Patwari Halka No. 50, new number is 17, has been expressly excluded from the Blocks mentioned in the notification. Thus, the petitioner submits that Patwari Circle No. 50 does not fall within the jurisdiction of Janpad Sabha or Panchayat. The Municipal Council, Khurai recovers show tax from the petitioner, one of such receipt is P/2, granted by the Municipal Council, Khurai. Under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the M.P. Panchayat Act, 1981 the State Government is empowered to divide districts into Blocks., In the notification, Patwari Circle No. 50 has been excluded from the operation of the M.P. Panchayat Act, 1962. There is no notification to the contrary so far issued under the Panchayat Adhiniyam. The demand raised of entertainment/show tax as per P/3 of a sum of Rs. 4137.30 and Rs. 3204.58 as per P/4 is illegal. Petitioner filed objection to the demand notice P/5. Chief Executive Officer rejected the objection as per order P/7 dated 8-5-1990. Thereafter Naib Tehsildar, respondent No. 5 issued demand notice dated 6-7-1990 for Rs. 2100/- for the period November 1989 to May 1990. Petitioner submits that this Court in M.P. No. 26/1997 (B.K. Marfatia vs. State of M.P.) and in M.P. No. 1269/1984 (Kum Kum Talkies Panna and another vs. State of M.P.) held that Janpad Panchayat cannot recover show tax outside its territorial limits.

3. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 contending that the challenge is misconceived. Janpad Panchayat has authority to impose entertainment/show tax. Now another notification R/1 dated 8-10-1990 has been issued. The decision in Kum Kum Talkies be referred to larger Bench. However, it is not disputed that the Talkies is situated in Patwari Circle No. 50, new number of which is 17.

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that the village has been constituted under section 3 and village Khurai does not include Patwari Circle No. 17. Decision of this Court in Kum Kum Talkies P/13 has been filed and also of Shree Mohan Talkies P/14 - M.P. No. 156/94 (Shree Mohan Talkies Katni and ors. vs. State of M.P. and ors.) decided on 3rd April, 1997.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the area in question is not included in the Janpad Panchayat area. It has been specifically excluded as per notification P/1 and the notification of village P/12 issued in the year 1994 also does not include Patwari Circle No. 17 in the village as such it should be taken that the area in question is not included in the Block Khurai, of which Janpad Panchayat, Khurai is consisted. Thus, the recovery as per the demand notices P/3 and P/4 and the order P/7 of rejection of the objection of the petitioner - be quashed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for Janpad Panchayat submits that the area in question has been included within Block Khurai as per R/1 notification dated 8-10-1990. Thus, the action is proper. No interference is called for. Notification of village is under section 3 of the Panchayat Adhiniyam 1993 is for a different purpose, not for constitution of Block.

7. Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 4, and