[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay vs Indore Municipal Corporation on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8528
1 WP-11274-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11274 of 2026
VIJAY AND OTHERS
Versus
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Dharmendra Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the
order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the respondent / Municipal Corporation
pursuant to the directions given by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 in
W.P. No.47922/2025. By the said order, respondent / Municipal Corporation
was directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioners under Section
174 of the Municipal Corporation Act against the bill raised under Section
173 of the said Act.
2. The objections raised by the petitioners are contained in Annexure
P-4 and pertain to the following main grounds :
"(i) That the bill under Section 173 was raised on 13.12.2025 against
dead person;
(ii) That the demand has been raised for the period from 2000-2001 to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8528
2 WP-11274-2026
2025-2026 and is therefore barred by time;
(iii) That several persons are in occupation of the property under
question.
(iv) On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, it was requested that proper
assessment of property tax be done and the petitioners stated in the
application that it will comply with any demand if calculated in accordance
with law."
3. Learned senior counsel while referring to Annexure P-1, the
impugned order, submits that none of the petitioners' grounds have even
been touched in the same. It merely states that the petitioners having huge
property at prime location in the city and is still not paying property tax. He
submits that this ground cannot justify the demand, especially when this
Court has already directed the respondent to decide the objections of the
petitioners. It is also stated that appropriate tax of property is being paid.
3.1 He submits that perusal of the order shows that it only refers to the
demand and the location of the property. There is not even reference to the
assessment, which goes to show that the respondent has not actually assessed
the property tax. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and the
rules made thereunder, as required for assessment of property tax.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, who
appears on advance notice, submits that in the first round of litigation, this
Court directed that respondent to decide the objections of the petitioners. The
objections have been decided, rightly or wrongly, once the objections were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8528
3 WP-11274-2026
decided, the petitioners should have challenged the order by filing appeal in
terms of the provisions of Section 184 of the Municipal Corporation Act. He
therefore submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed, as
statutory remedy is available against the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
contained in the case file.
6. A perusal of the representation (Annexure P-4) and the order passed
thereon (Annexure P-1) show that the objections raised by the petitioners
have not been touched by the respondent while deciding the representation.
In the considered view of this Court, the respondents have thus failed to
comply with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation. As such, the order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) is hereby
quashed.
7. The respondents are directed to decide the representation of the
petitioners afresh. While doing so, they shall advert to each and every
objection raised by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with
law.
8. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner has only deposited
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.03.2026 against the impugned demand, it is
hereby directed that the petitioners shall further deposit amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this
order.
9. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not opined anything on
merits of the case. However, it is incumbent upon the respondent / authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8528
4 WP-11274-2026
to properly assessed the property tax after adverting to the provisions of law
contained in the Municipal Corporation Act and the rules made thereunder
and then pass appropriate order.
10. Till the objections of the petitioners are decided, no coercive
action shall be taken against the petitioners.
11. In case, there is adverse order against the petitioners, he shall be
given seven day's breathing period to redress his grievances against the
same.
12. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Anushree
