The Bombay High Court directed the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to immediately unseal the commercial premises of a 75-year-old Vadapav vendor after ruling that municipal authorities lacked statutory power to seal shops over alleged property tax arrears. The dispute arose after Lachman alias Shekhar Bhagchand Duseja challenged the attachment and sealing action taken against his shop and godown at Shivaji Chowk. A division bench comprising Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Justice Sandesh D. Patil observed that no provision under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act authorised such sealing measures for tax recovery proceedings.

Ulhasnagar Property Tax Case: Bombay High Court Orders UMC to Unseal 75-Year-Old Vendor’s Shop and Godown

The Bombay High Court ruled that Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation lacked legal authority to seal commercial premises over alleged property tax arrears, granting relief to a 75-year-old Vadapav vendor from Ulhasnagar.

The Ulhasnagar property tax sealing dispute reached the Bombay High Court after Lachman alias Shekhar Bhagchand Duseja challenged action initiated by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation against his commercial premises over alleged arrears.

A division bench comprising Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Justice Sandesh D. Patil directed the civic body to immediately unseal the petitioner’s shop and godown situated at Shivaji Chowk, Ulhasnagar.

According to court records, the 75-year-old petitioner claimed ownership and occupation of Shop No.418 along with a godown where he has reportedly been operating a Vadapav business for several years.

The municipal corporation had issued an attachment order dated March 30, 2026, alleging non-payment of property taxes before subsequently sealing the commercial premises, leading to the present writ petition before the court.

Senior advocate S.B. Rao, appearing along with advocate R.B. Duseja for the petitioner, argued before the court that municipal authorities possessed no statutory power permitting sealing of premises for unpaid property taxes.

The petitioner’s legal team also submitted copies of earlier Bombay High Court rulings delivered in writ petitions from 2017 and 2019, supporting arguments against such municipal enforcement measures.

To view the related documents –  Click here

Bombay High Court questions the legal basis behind the Ulhasnagar sealing action

During proceedings, counsel Suresh M. Kamble represented Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, while government pleader Neha Bhide and assistant government pleader Aditya R. Deolekar appeared for Respondent No.4-State.

The corporation argued that the petition had been filed belatedly and further submitted that interim protection should only be considered after the petitioner deposited the entire disputed amount mentioned within the attachment notices.

However, the court observed that previous judicial decisions had already interpreted provisions under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, regarding recovery mechanisms available to municipal authorities in taxation disputes.

The bench specifically noted that no provision within the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act or corresponding rules enabled authorities to seal commercial establishments solely for non-payment of property taxes.

The order further recorded that counsel appearing for the municipal corporation was unable to identify any statutory provision authorising sealing action against the petitioner’s premises over pending tax liabilities.

Consequently, the High Court directed Respondent No.1, identified as the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, to forthwith unseal both the shop premises and the godown involved in the legal dispute.

Also Read: Hindu Groups Oppose Savarkar Sadan Redevelopment.

Court allows tax payment while penalty dispute remains pending

During the hearing, advocate S.B. Rao informed the bench that the petitioner remained willing to clear outstanding property tax dues, excluding late payment penalties reflected in municipal bills submitted before the court.

The disputed bills reportedly included property tax demands amounting to Rs.5,64,098 for the godown premises and Rs.1,30,167 for the commercial shop premises operated by the petitioner.

The High Court permitted the petitioner to deposit the principal property tax amount within two weeks while clarifying that disputes relating to late payment penalty charges would remain subject to adjudication.

The bench additionally directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply on or before June 30, 2026, before the matter is listed again for hearing on July 13, 2026.

Legal observers tracking municipal enforcement disputes stated that the ruling could influence future challenges involving civic recovery mechanisms, particularly where sealing actions are initiated without explicit statutory authority under municipal legislation.

The case has also drawn attention within Maharashtra’s urban governance and property taxation framework, as courts increasingly examine whether aggressive recovery measures adopted by civic authorities comply with existing statutory provisions and constitutional protections.

Sprouts News reviewed the Bombay High Court order forming the basis of this report. The matter remains pending before the court, and further proceedings are expected during the next scheduled hearing in July 2026.

Support fearless investigative journalism with Unmesh Gujarathi, an investigative journalist based in Mumbai, exposing issues of public interest and accountability. Readers can join and strengthen the independent reporting team by contacting 9322755098 and becoming part of impactful journalism dedicated to truth and transparency.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.