Hindustan Abhikaran A Registered Partnership Firm vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87753
1 WP-8169-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8169 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010160812026
HINDUSTAN ABHIKARAN A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and
4/Corporation.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari and set aside the impugned demand notice dated
18.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent 4 in so far it contains
direction of attachment of the shops of petitioners.
(ii) That any other relief as may deem fit in the interest of justice, may
also kindly be granted.
2. Challenge is made to the notice dated 18.02.2026 issued to the owner
of the premises in question. The petitioner No. 1 is in possession of 4 shops
and petitioner No.2 is in possession of 2 shops situated at Pandhana Road
Khandwa, District Khandwa (M.P.). The said shops are owned by respondent
No.5 and the petitioners are tenants of the premises in question for past 35
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:23:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87753
2 WP-8169-2026
years.

3. The impugned notice (Annexure P/1) reads as under :
2025
आपके भवन पर नगर पािलक िनगम के संप ीकर क  रािश माच  तक
265330/- 1956
रािश का म यदेश नगर पािलक िनगम अिधिनयम क  धारा
174 -
के अंतग त आपको मांग का सूचना प  तािमल कया गया था। परंतु

आपके $ारा समयाविध के प %ात भी उ ' बकाया रािश का भुगतान नह *ं कया
गया।
2025-26 39282/-
वत मान म + आपके भवन पर वष  संप -कर क  रािश देय है।
304612/-
इस कार बकाया है।
24
अतः आपको सूिचत कया जाता है क सूचना ाि2 के घंटे म + उ ' बकाया
,
कर 5 क  रािश नगर पािलक िनगम कोष म + जमा कर रसीद ा2 कर + अ 6यथा

समयाविध प %ात आपके भवन पर म यदेश नगर पािलक िनगम
1956 175 177
अिधिनयम क  धारा के अधीन एवं अिधिनयम क  धारा के

उपबंध 5 के अधीन चल अचल संप - कुक  कर वसूली काय वाह* क  जावेगी।
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
on rent in the premises in question. No such notice has been issued to the
petitioners. In absence of any notice to the petitioners, no action can be taken
against them. It is pointed out that for purpose of recovery of property tax,
notice of auctioning the property should not have been issued by the
authorities. He has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the
M/s Parkson Decor Galleria Private Limited vs Indore Municipal
Corporation and others : WP No. 17290 of 2024 (Indore Bench) decided on
05.07.2024 wherein it is held as under :
5. Heard. On due consideration, and on perusal of the documents filed
on record, this Court finds that the issue raised in the petition has
already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Sohel Ansari (supra), which read as under:-
“ By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of
respondent no. 1 in putting lock on the rented shop of petitioner. The
petitioner's case is that he had taken the shop at 159 MG Road Paliwal
Tower Indore on rent from respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 had
committed default in payment of property tax, therefore, the shop of
petitioner has been illegally locked by respondent no.1. Respondent
no. 1 has filed reply and taken the stand that the impugned action has
been taken by respondent no. 1 to recover the property tax which was
due and payable by respondent no.2. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that issue of
jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 Municipal corporation to seal or lock
the rented premises for recovery of property tax is already settled by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:23:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87753
3 WP-8169-2026
this court wherein it has been held that Municipal corporation has
power to attach the rent but it does not have the power to seal the
rented premises for recovery of property tax. In this regard in the
matter of Saleem Mansoori and others Vs. Municipal Corporation and
others reported in 2009(3) MPLJ 519 it has been held as under:
(6) A close perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that, it is within
the power of the municipal corporation, to recover the property tax
charged and levied on the owner even from the occupier of said
premises in the manner and to the extent as is provided in the act.
Whereas, section 134 (6) stipulates that in case of property tax, by the
attachment of rent due in respect of the property. A conjoint reading of
section 141 (2) and section 134 (6) reveals that the recovery of property
tax, if it is to be effected on an occupier who happens to be tenant
which can only be by attachment rent due in respect of the said
property. Learned counsel for the respondent - corporation has failed
to show any provision which empowers the municipal corporation to
effect recovery by putting a lock over the property in occupation of a
tenant to effect recovery of property tax.
The Coordinate Bench of this court also in the matter of Kewalram
Jaswani Vs. Indore Municipal corporation and another in WP no.
7260/18 vide order dated 4/4/2018 taking note of the provision of
Municipal Corporation Act has held that the law does not provide for
placing a lock over the premises which is being used by the tenant.
Considering the legal position this court vide interim order dated 20th
July 2018 had directed the respondents to open the lock put-up in the
shop of petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner has informed that lock has now been opened.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that premises in question
was locked because respondent no. 1 was not aware of the fact that it
was a tenanted premises. Having regard to the aforesaid factual and
legal position and also taking into account of the fact that respondent
no. 1 municipal corporation has no right to seal or lock the rented
premises for recovery of property tax, the present writ petition is
disposed off by restraining the respondent no. 1 from putting the lock
in the premises in question for the recovery of property tax. However,
the respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to attach the rent and take
other action as has been provided under the Act.”
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that this Court has
already relied upon the earlier decision in the case of Saleem Mansoori
and others vs. Municipal Corporation and others reported as 2009(3)
MPLJ 519, and has held that the Municipal Corporation has no right to
seal or lock the rented premises for recovery of property tax.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4-Corporation has filed
reply in the matter wherein it is stated thus :
"2...
C. The answering respondents are conscious of the order dated
05.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 17290 /
2024 as well as the legal principles discussed therein concerning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:23:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87753
4 WP-8169-2026
recovery of property tax from rented premises. The answering
respondents shall act in conformity with the binding directions
applicable to the present case.
D. That the answering respondents submit that the Corporation is
entitled to pursue such modes of recovery as are specifically
permissible under the Act, including attachment of rent payable in
respect of the property, wherever the statutory conditions for such
action are satisfied.
...
3. It is further submitted that by order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure
P/1), the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Khandwa has not
committed any error of law and provision. Hence, the order dated
18.02.2026 issued by the answering respondent is just and proper."

6. After going through the reply, a specific query was put to the counsel
for the respondents No.2 to 4-Corporation that whether for recovery of
property tax, the notice for auctioning of the property can be issued. He
fairly submits before this Court that they are aware of the law laid down by
this Court in WP No. 17290 of 2024 (supra) and will take proceedings in
accordance with law for recovery of property tax. He was asked to justify
that how such notice was issued. He submits before this Court that it is only
the notice and further proceedings will be taken in accordance with law.
7. Once the notice has been issued for auctioning the property of the
owner for recovery of the property tax, then how subsequent proceedings for
recovery apart from what has been mentioned in the notice can be initiated
by the respondents-Corporation, is not explained by the counsel appearing
for the respondents No.2 to 4-Corporation.
8. Under these circumstances, the stand taken by the counsel for
respondents-Corporation is unjustified. They have admitted in the reply that
they are aware of the legal provisions and the law laid down in WP No.
17290 of 2024 but despite the same the notice for auctioning of the property
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:23:39

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87753
5 WP-8169-2026
of the owner has been issued which could not have been done by the

respondents-Corporation. Therefore, the impugned notice becomes
unsustainable. No auction of the property could be done for recovery of the
property tax. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 18.02.2026 is hereby
quashed.
9. In above terms, the petition stands allowed and disposed of finally.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:23:39