Eviction order vitiated for failure to issue statutory notice to actual occupants under Section 81-B.

The Jalgaon Municipal Corporation allotted a plot of 4 Acres 4 Gunthas to the Petitioner-Association via a three-year lease agreement dated 14.11.1983.

The Association constructed a complex and allotted 133 shops to its members for business activities.

Although the formal lease expired after three years, the occupants continued in possession and paid rent/taxes.

On 02.05.2016, the Municipal Commissioner passed an eviction order under Sections 81-A and 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, alleging unauthorized occupation.

The Petitioners appealed the order, but the District Judge-2, Jalgaon, dismissed the appeal on 15.10.2018.

The Petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, primarily on the ground that the actual occupants (the 125+ members) were not issued individual notices despite the Corporation being notified of their possession.

The court primarily applied Sections 81-A and 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

Section 81-B(1) stipulates that if a person is in unauthorized occupation, the Commissioner must serve a notice to vacate.

Section 81-B(2) mandates that before an eviction order is made, the Commissioner "shall" issue a notice calling upon "all persons concerned," defined as all persons who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in, the premises, to show cause against the proposed order.

This embodies the statutory requirement of natural justice.

The court observed that while the Association was the original allottee, the fact that approximately 125 individual members were in actual occupation of specific shops was categorically disclosed to the Municipal Commissioner during the reply to the show-cause notice.

The court reasoned that a "plain reading" of Section 81-B makes it a statutory obligation for the Commissioner to issue notice to any person in occupation or claiming interest.

The court rejected the Respondent's contention that notice to the Association sufficed, holding that once the authority was informed of the sub-allottees/actual occupants, failure to serve them individual notices constituted a breach of mandatory statutory procedure and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the procedural irregularity rendered the resulting eviction and appellate orders legally unsustainable.

It held that the Municipal Commissioner must comply with the mandatory notice requirements of Section 81-B regarding all actual occupants.

The Court granted liberty to the Municipal Commissioner to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing individual notices to all persons in actual occupation, providing them a four-month window to file replies and be heard before any fresh order is passed. Case Rule made absolute.