Supreme Court: In the appeals arising from a dispute between the Unchgaon Village Panchayat (V) and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (Corporation) regarding jurisdiction over certain lands and the competence of a civil court to entertain a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion that such lands fell within municipal limits, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes challenging the determination or alteration of municipal limits made in exercise of statutory power under Section 3, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (59 of 1949) (MMC Act) as such exercise of power had legislative character, not administrative.
Factual Matrix
The Panchayat, established in 1943 under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, administered Village Unchgaon, whereas the Corporation functioned under the MMC Act.
On 29 January 2013, the Corporation issued a public notice in a widely circulated newspaper declaring that several specified lands in Village Unchgaon fell within municipal limits and were subject to development plan reservations. It further alleged that constructions on those lands were unauthoriesd and liable for demolition within a stipulated time.
The Panchayat asserted that the lands in question had always remained within its jurisdiction and had never been validly included in municipal limits. It argued that permissions and commencement certificates had been issued by it for constructions over the years and that the Corporation’s proposed demolition action was without authority and contrary to law.
Aggrieved by the notice and impending demolition, the Panchayat instituted civil suit, seeking declarations that the lands were not part of municipal limits; any inclusion was illegal and not binding; and the Corporation be restrained from acting against the properties. An application for temporary injunction was also filed seeking protection against demolition.
The Corporation opposed the suit, relying on historical notifications from the 1940s asserting that the lands were already within municipal limits. It also objected to maintainability of the suit, contending that the suit was barred under Section 149, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (37 of 1966) (Maharashtra Town Planning Act) and that the matter lay outside civil court jurisdiction.
The civil court framed a preliminary issue under Section 9-A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) regarding jurisdiction. Upon considering evidence, it held that the dispute involved mixed questions of fact and law and therefore required adjudication after trial. It consequently upheld jurisdiction and granted interim injunction restraining the Corporation from acting on the public notice.
On appeal, the appellate court set aside the injunction, while the High Court, upheld the appellate court’s order, in revision, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction altogether. It observed that determination of municipal limits under Section 3, MMC Act was legislative in nature and cannot be challenged in a civil suit. As a consequence, the suit stood dismissed and the writ petition filed by the Panchayat was also rejected.
Issue for Determination
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking declarations that the disputed lands were not included within the municipal limits of the Corporation and that any such inclusion or extension of limits was illegal and not binding upon it?
Analysis and Reasoning
The Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be determined from the substance of the reliefs and the real controversy, not merely their form in which the reliefs are couched. The Court found that the primary relief sought was a declaration that the lands were not part of municipal limits and that any inclusion was illegal. Thus, the dispute essentially related to determination and alteration of municipal limits. It held that framing reliefs as declarations and injunctions does not change the essential nature of the dispute.
Interpreting Section 3, MMC Act, the Court held that the power to specify or alter municipal limits is exercised by the State Government and “the nature of this power is not administrative in the ordinary sense but partakes the character of a legislative function, involving the declaration of municipal limits and the constitution of local bodies for governance of specified areas”.
The Court held that once such determination as to exercise of statutory power was made, the validity or legality of such determination cannot ordinarily be questioned in a civil suit. Further, since the Corporation’s action was taken under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act as a planning authority, Section 149 expressly barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine.
The Court rejected the Panchayat’s argument that the presence of disputed facts conferred jurisdiction, clarifying that even mixed questions of fact and law cannot override a statutory bar where the subject-matter lies outside civil jurisdiction.
An additional factor considered by the Court was that the inclusion of lands within municipal limits was not recent but traceable to notifications dating back to the 1940s. It held that such inclusion, being legislative in nature, attains finality and cannot be challenged belatedly after decades in collateral civil proceedings. Further, it noted that the Panchayat’s conduct in allowing development and administrative arrangements to continue for years without timely objection militated against granting declaratory relief.
The Court criticised the civil court for failing to determine jurisdiction at the threshold and wrongly treating the issue as one requiring trial merely because mixed questions of fact and law were involved.
Ultimately, the Court held that the reliefs sought were not merely enforcement of private civil rights but aimed at invalidating statutory and legislative actions, which fall outside the domain of civil courts.
Decision
The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment and held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
Since the appeals were dismissed, the interim order directing status quo stood vacated. Consequently, the contempt petition alleging violation of that order was disposed of as infructuous.
[Unchgaon Village Panchayat v. Kolhapur Municipal Corpn., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 657, decided on 22-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. B Lakshmi Pallesh, Adv., Ms. Akshada, Adv., Mr. Jarnail Singh, Adv., M/s. S.M. Jadhav and Company, AOR, Counsel for the Appellant
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR, Mr. Diganta Gogoi, Adv., Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Vikram Singh Dogra, Adv., Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR, Mr. B Lakshmi Pallesh, Adv., Ms. Akshada, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Jarnail Singh, Adv., Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR, Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR, Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv., Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv., Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv., Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yashodha Chandurkar, Adv., Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Counsel for the Respondents