Jalgaon District Motor Owners And Tansport Agent Association Jalgaon Thr Trustees J S Bagga And Ors vs The Commisioner Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation Jalgaon And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:18516
1 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
102 WRIT PETITION NO. 12438 OF 2018
JALGAON DISTRICT MOTOR OWNERS AND TANSPORT AGENT
ASSOCIATION JALGAON THR TRUSTEES J S BAGGA AND ORS
VERSUS
THE COMMISIONER JALGAON CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
JALGAON AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Subodh P. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. V. D. Gunale,
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
th
DATE : 10 APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, heard finally.
3. By the present petition, the Petitioners challenge the order
dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalgaon
Municipal Corporation under Sections 81-A and 81-B of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) in
respect of land bearing Survey No.30, situated at Mehrun, Jalgaon, as
well as the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned District
Judge-2, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.97 of 2016, whereby the
appeal filed by the Petitioners came to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Subodh Shah, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
Tauseef

2 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
invited attention to the agreement executed between the Municipal
Corporation and the Petitioner-Association. He submitted that the
Corporation had let an open plot admeasuring 4 Acres 4 Gunthas to the
Petitioner-Association vide agreement dated 14.11.1983 for developing
transport terminal. Initially, the agreement was in the nature of a lease
for a period of three years, which admittedly was not formally
extended thereafter.
5. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to such allotment,
the Petitioner-Association constructed a complex and allotted 133
shops to its members. The members are in possession of the respective
shops and are carrying on their business activities therein. He fairly
conceded that the lease period expired after three years; however, the
occupation continued. He further submitted that the Municipal
Commissioner issued show cause notices under Sections 81-A and 81-B
of the Act alleging unauthorized occupation after expiry of the lease.
After hearing the Petitioner-Association, the Commissioner passed the
impugned order dated 02.05.2016 directing eviction.
6. He further invited attention to the reply filed before the
Municipal Commissioner, wherein it was specifically stated that
pursuant to an application dated 29.12.1983 for establishing a
transport terminal, the Petitioner constructed shops and handed over
possession to its members. It was also stated that there were about 125
Tauseef

3 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
members in occupation. He further contended that a resolution was
passed by the Corporation to extend the lease period up to 99 years. He
also submitted that the members have been regularly paying rent and
taxes and are carrying on business in the premises.
7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2016, the
Petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge,
Jalgaon. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated
15.10.2018.
8. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioners, contended that
in view of Section 81-B(1)(2) of the Act, when it was specifically
brought to the notice of the Commissioner that individual members
were in occupation of the premises, notices ought to have been issued
to such individual occupants. He submitted that failure to issue notices
to the actual occupants renders the proceedings vitiated. He therefore
contended that the impugned orders are contrary to law and liable to
be set aside on this ground alone.
9. Per contra, Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr. V. D. Gunale for the Respondent, supported the
impugned orders. He submitted that the contention regarding non-
issuance of individual notices is raised for the first time before this
Court and was never urged before the Commissioner or the Appellate
Court. He further submitted that the allotment was in favour of the
Tauseef

4 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
Petitioner-Association and, therefore, the Association itself is the
“person” in occupation within the meaning of Section 81 of the Act. He
argued that it is not necessary to issue individual notices to members
who are inducted by the Association. According to him, once the lease
expired and was not extended, the Petitioner-Association continued in
unauthorized occupation and is liable to hand over possession.
10. Having heard the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the
record, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Sections 81-A and
81-B of the Act. “Unauthorised occupation” in relation to Corporation
premises includes occupation by any person without authority and also
continuation in occupation after expiry or determination of such
authority.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after construction
of the premises, the Petitioner-Association allotted shops to its
members, who are in actual occupation. This fact was specifically
brought to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner. Once such
disclosure was made indicating that approximately 125 members were
in possession, it was incumbent upon the Municipal Commissioner to
issue notices to the actual occupants of the premises.
12. In this context, reference to Section 81-B of the Act assumes
significance, particularly regarding the requirement of notice to the
“person in occupation”, which reads as under:-
Tauseef

5 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
“81-B. Power to evict persons from Corporation premises- (1)
Where the Commissioner is satisfied,—
(a) that the person authorised to occupy any Corporation
premises has, whether before or after the commencement of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Second Amendment)
Act, 1969 (Mah. VIII of 1970),-
(i) not paid for a period of more than two months, the rent or
taxes lawfully due from him in respect of such premises ; or
(ii) sub-let, contrary to the terms and conditions of his occupation,
the whole or any part of such premises ; or
(iii) committed, or is committing, such acts of waste as are likely
to diminish materially the value or impair substantially the utility,
of the premises ; or
(iv) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express
or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such
premises ;
(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any
Corporation premises ;
(c) that any Corporation premises in the occupation of any person
are required by the Corporation in the public interest, the
Commissioner may, by notice served by post, or by affixing a copy
of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such
premises, or in such other manner as may be provided, for by
regulations, order that person, as well as any other person who
may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises,
shall vacate them within one month of the date of the service of
the notice.
(2) Before an order under sub-section (1) is made against any
person, the Commissioner shall issue, in the manner hereinafter
provided, a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to
show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. The
notice shall,—
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed
to be made, and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who
are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in, the
Corporation premises, to show cause against the proposed order,
on or before such date as is specified in the notice.
If such person makes an application to the
Commissioner for the extension of the period specified in the
notice, the Commissioner may grant the same on such terms as to
payment and recovery of the amount claimed in the notice, as he
deems fit.
Any written statement put in by any person and
documents produced, in pursuance of the notice, shall be filed
with the record of the case, and such person shall be entitled to
appear before the Commissioner by advocate, attorney or other
legal practitioner.
The notice to be served under this sub-section shall be
Tauseef

6 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
served in the manner provided for the service of a notice under
sub-section (1); and thereupon, the notice shall be deemed to
have been duly given to all persons concerned.
(3) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made
under sub-section (1), the Commissioner may evict that person
and any other person who obstructs him and take possession of
the premises; and may for that purpose use such force as may be
necessary.
(4) The Commissioner may, after giving fourteen clear days’ notice
to the person from whom possession of the Corporation premises
has been taken under sub-section (3) and after publishing such
notice in the Official Gazette and in at least one newspaper
circulating in the locality, remove or cause to be removed, or
dispose of by public auction any property remaining on such
premises. Such notice shall be served in the manner provided for
the service of a notice under sub-section (1).
(5) Where the property is sold under sub-section (4), the sale
proceeds shall, after deducting the expenses of sale, be paid to
such person or persons as may appear to the Commissioner to be
entitled to the same :
Provided that, where the Commissioner is unable to
decide as to the person or persons to whom the balance of the
amount is payable or as to the apportionment of the same, he
shall refer such dispute to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction
and the decision of the Court thereon shall be final.
(6) If a person, who has been ordered to vacate any premises
under sub-clause (i) or (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), within
one month of the date of service of the notice, or such longer time
as the Commissioner may allow, pays to the Commissioner the
rent and taxes in arrears, or as the case may be, carries out or
otherwise complies with the terms contravened by him to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall on such
terms, if any (including the payment of any sum by way of
damages or compensation for the contravention aforesaid), in lieu
of evicting such person under subsection (3), cancel his order
made under sub-section (1); and thereupon such person shall
continue to hold the premises on the same terms on which he held
them immediately before such notice was served on him.”
13. Sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 81-B of the Act provides that
where the Commissioner is satisfied that any person is in unauthorised
occupation of the Corporation premises, the Commissioner shall issue
notice to such person calling upon him to show cause why an order of
Tauseef

7 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
eviction should not be made. Sub-Section (2) further mandates that
before passing any order under Sub-Section (1), the Commissioner
shall serve a notice in writing, in the prescribed manner, upon all
persons concerned, calling upon them to show cause against the
proposed eviction. The notice is required to specify the grounds on
which the eviction is sought and to afford an opportunity to such
persons to submit their reply.
14. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it
abundantly clear that the Commissioner is under a statutory obligation
to issue notice to all persons who are in occupation of, or claim interest
in, the Corporation premises.
15. In the present case, it is not disputed that the premises are
not in exclusive occupation of the Petitioner-Association. On the
contrary, it was specifically brought to the notice of the Municipal
Commissioner that approximately 125 individual members are in
occupation of the respective premises. Despite such disclosure, no
notices were issued to the said occupants, and the proceedings were
conducted only against the Petitioner-Association.
16. Once the Petitioners had categorically informed the authority
that the actual occupants were individual members, the Municipal
Commissioner ought to have issued notices to such persons. Failure to
do so amounts to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
Tauseef

8 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
Section 81-B of the Act as well as violation of principles of natural
justice.
17. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.05.2016
passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation
and the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge,
Jalgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.97 of 2016 cannot be sustained and
are liable to be quashed and set aside.
18. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned
Commissioner, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation and the
order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned District
Judge, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.97 of 2016
are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is clarified that the Municipal Commissioner is at
liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with
law by issuing notices to all the persons who are in
actual occupation of the premises, specifying the
grounds for proposed eviction.
(iv) Upon issuance of such notices, the concerned occupants
shall be at liberty to file their replies, and the Municipal
Commissioner shall thereafter grant them an
Tauseef

9 of 9 102-WP.12438.2018-J
opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
(v) The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a period of four
months from the date of this order.
(vi). Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef