The Bombay High Court has held that a municipal corporation cannot seal premises merely for non-payment of property tax in the absence of an express statutory provision and directed the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to immediately unseal a 75-year-old businessman’s shop and godown that had been sealed over alleged property tax arrears.
A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Justice Sandesh D. Patil passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by a senior citizen who operates a vada pav business from a shop and godown located at Shivaji Chowk, Ulhasnagar.
The petitioner challenged an attachment order dated March 30, 2026, through which the municipal authorities allegedly attached and sealed his commercial premises on the ground of outstanding property tax dues. According to the petitioner, the sealing of the premises effectively prevented him from carrying on his livelihood and business activities.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner relied upon several earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court and argued that the municipal corporation had no legal authority under the applicable municipal laws to seal premises solely for recovery of property tax dues.
The Court examined previous judgments on the issue and noted that the legal position was already settled. The Bench observed that neither the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 nor the rules framed under it contain any provision empowering municipal authorities to seal a property for non-payment of property tax.
Importantly, when questioned by the Court, counsel appearing for the municipal corporation was unable to point out any statutory provision authorising such sealing action.
Taking note of this legal deficiency, the Court held that the sealing action could not be sustained.
The Bench directed the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to forthwith unseal both the petitioner’s premises — the shop as well as the godown. The order restored the petitioner’s ability to resume his business operations pending further adjudication of the dispute.
While granting relief against sealing, the Court also recorded that the petitioner was willing to pay the property tax amount reflected in the tax bills, excluding the component relating to late payment penalties. The petitioner specifically disputed the legality and quantum of the late payment penalty charges imposed by the corporation.
The Court permitted the petitioner to deposit the property tax amount, after excluding the disputed penalty component, within two weeks.
The High Court clarified that the controversy relating to late payment penalties would be examined at a later stage after the municipal corporation files its affidavit in reply. The respondents have been directed to file their response on or before June 30, 2026.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
