Mohammad Firoz vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Pranay Verma, J

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

" a) To allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, direction or order and quash the impugned notice dated 09-09-2025 (Annexure P/1) and all the consequential actions taken pursuant to the above mentioned notice dated 09-09-2025 (Annexure P/1);

b) to direct the respondent 4 to open the lock of the premises of the petitioner situated at- 33, Champabag, Ward No. 60, Zone-11, Indore, District- Indore (M,P.);

c) Any other relief is this court may deem fit, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 09/09/2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to him whereby his premises have been sealed and locked on account of non payment of property tax.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property tax is due against the petitioner but not to the tune of Rs. 526086/- as has been stated by the respondents. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit part of the amount before respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already raised an objection before the respondents which has remained pending and has not been decided as yet. Counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.7260/2018 dated 04/04/2018, in which, this Court has held that the Municipal Corporation has no right to seal or lock the rented premises for recovery of property tax and at the most, the Corporation can attach the rent and take other action in accordance with law.

Counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has stated that he has preferred an objection but no such objection has been brought on record.

Heard.

On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record as also the aforesaid decision, and taking note of the order passed by this Court in the case of Kewalram Jaswani vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and another passed in WP No.7260/2018 dated 04/04/2018, the relevant para of the same read as under:-

"It is true that there are outstanding dues in respect of property tax and the Municipal Corporation is certainly competent to attach the premises in question keeping in view Section 134(6) of the Act of 1956 and they are also entitled to recover the amount keeping in view the procedure prescribed under Section 175 of the Act of 1956. Section 175 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:-

“175. In what case warrant may issue,- (1) If the person on whom a notice of demand is served under sub-section (1) of section 174 does not within thirty days of the service of such notice-

(a) pay the sum demanded in the notice; or

(b) show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner why he should not pay the same; or

(c) prefer an appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 184 against the demand;

such sun with all costs of recovery may be recovered under a warrant in the form prescribed byelaws signed by the Commissioner --.

(i) by distress and sale of the movable property belonging to such person; or

(ii) by attachment and sale of the immovable property belonging to him;

Provided that, where any precautionary or other measures in respect of any such property have been taken by the Government for the recovery of any sum claimed by it, no proceedings shall be taken over continued under this chapter in respect of such property until the Government‘s claim has been paid off.

(2) Where the property is within the limits of the City, the warrant shall be addressed to an officer of the Corporation and where the property is outside the limits to the Collector of the district concerned:

Provided that the officer to whom the warrant is addressed under sub-section(2) or subsection (3) may endorse such warrant to a subordinate officer.

(3) for every warrant issued under this section, fee shall be charged at the rates specified in the regulations and the said fee shall be included in the costs of recovery.”

In light of the aforesaid statutory provision of law, even the Corporation can attach and sale the premises in question for realization of property tax dues but the aforesaid provision of law does not provide for placing a lock over the premises which is being used by the tenant in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Resultantly, only the action of the Corporation to the extent premises has been locked is set aside. The Corporation is directed to remove the lock forthwith. However, the Corporation shall be free to take all possible steps provided under the Act of 1956 for recovery of property tax. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of."

In the light of the aforesaid decision, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned action of the respondents in sealing and locking of the petitioner's premises is apparently illegal and is liable to be set aside.

In the available facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 1,0,00/- before the respondents within a period of 30 days from today. Within that period, the petitioner may also prefer an additional objection, if deemed necessary, before the respondents or may file a copy of his objection before respondents within the said period. Thereafter, the respondents shall decide the amount of property tax recoverable from the petitioner and shall be free to take all possible steps provided under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for recovery of the same. However, the act of sealing the premises cannot be sustained and accordingly respondents Municipal Corporation are directed to remove the lock of the petitioner's premises forthwith.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.