[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9111
1 WP-8936-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8936 of 2026
GANESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2 and 3].
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 and 3
whereby his shop has been sealed for alleged recovery of property tax.
2. Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.13560/2018 (Sohel Ansari vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and another)
dated 27.8.2018 wherein also, in a petition filed by a tenant, it has already been
held that the Municipal Corporation has no right to seal or lock the rented premises
for recovery of property tax. Thus, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
3. Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3
Municipal Corporation, Indore has submitted that the Indore Municipal
Corporation would not be able to attach the rent as provided under Section 134 (6)
of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9111
2 WP-8936-2026
1956"), as the rent agreement itself is quite old and that too without any escalation
clause nor there is any extension clause provided in the said agreement.
4. 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 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 pen the lock put-up in the shop of petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner has informed that lock has now been opened.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9111
3 WP-8936-2026
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."
5. 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.
6. In such circumstances, the present petition is also hereby disposed off
with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to refrain from putting the lock in the
premises rented by the petitioner for recovery of property tax and the locks which
have already been sealed be removed immediately. However, the respondents No.
2 and 3 shall be at liberty to attach the rent and take other action as has been
provided under the Act. The petitioner shall also deposit the arrears of rent for a
period of four months before respondents 2 and 3 and shall continue to pay the
regular rent to them instead of paying the same to the land lord for which the land
lord shall not be entitled for initiating any action against the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
