The Supreme Court has held that the determination and alteration of municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is legislative in character and cannot ordinarily be subjected to adjudication before a Civil Court through suits seeking declaration and injunction.

The Court was hearing appeals arising from a dispute between a Village Panchayat and a Municipal Corporation concerning jurisdiction over certain lands and the competence of a Civil Court to entertain a suit challenging the inclusion of such lands within municipal limits.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed: “A perusal of Section 3 of the MMC Act as reproduced hereinabove would reveal that such determination of limits of area is made by the State Government in exercise of the statutory power. 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”.

Once such a determination is made in exercise of statutory power, the Court added, “its validity or legality cannot ordinarily be the subject matter of adjudication before a Civil Court by way of a suit seeking declaration and injunction”.

Advocate Amol B. Karande, AOR, appeared for the appellants; Advocate Abha R. Sharma, AOR, appeared for the respondents.

Background

The dispute arose out of a conflict between the Unchgaon Village Panchayat and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation regarding jurisdiction over certain lands situated in Village Uchgaon.

The Corporation had issued a public notice stating that specified lands fell within its municipal limits and further indicated that certain constructions on those lands were unauthorised and liable to demolition.

Aggrieved, the Panchayat instituted a civil suit seeking declarations that the lands in question were not part of municipal limits and that any purported inclusion was illegal and not binding. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the Corporation from acting upon such assertion.

The Civil Court initially held that it possessed jurisdiction and granted an interim injunction restraining the Corporation from taking action. However, the Appellate Court set aside the injunction, and the High Court, in revision, held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, resulting in the dismissal of the proceedings.

The Panchayat challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the scheme of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which governs specification and alteration of municipal limits.

It held that the power exercised by the State Government under this provision is not administrative but legislative in nature, involving the declaration of municipal limits and the constitution of local bodies for governance.

The Court observed: “the nature of this power is not administrative in the ordinary sense but partakes the character of a legislative function…”

On the question of jurisdiction, the Court held that once such a determination is made in the exercise of statutory power, its validity cannot ordinarily be questioned before a Civil Court.

It observed: “its validity or legality cannot ordinarily be the subject matter of adjudication before a Civil Court by way of a suit seeking declaration and injunction.”

The Court further held that even where reliefs are framed as civil declarations, the substance of the dispute must be examined to determine jurisdiction. The Court noted that the reliefs sought by the Panchayat were, in essence, directed towards invalidating the Corporation’s assertion of jurisdiction over the lands.

It held that such reliefs directly impinge upon statutory determinations relating to municipal limits and cannot be adjudicated in civil proceedings designed to resolve private disputes. The Court emphasised that the existence of disputed questions of fact does not confer jurisdiction upon Civil Courts where the subject matter itself falls outside their domain.

The Court further examined the action taken by the Corporation pursuant to the public notice and held that such action was traceable to its powers as a planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It noted that Section 149 of the said Act expressly bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matters which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine.

The Court also took note of the fact that inclusion of the concerned lands within municipal limits was traceable to earlier notifications dating back several decades. It held that such a determination, being legislative in nature, attains finality and cannot be unsettled through belated civil proceedings.

The Court observed that a challenge to such inclusion after a long lapse of time cannot be entertained, particularly where administrative and developmental arrangements have subsisted over the years.

The Court held that the Civil Court erred in proceeding on the basis that the dispute involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial. It clarified that the question of jurisdiction must be determined at the threshold based on the nature of reliefs and not deferred on the ground of factual disputes.

On an overall assessment, the Court held that the High Court had correctly appreciated the nature of the dispute and rightly concluded that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. It found the approach consistent with the statutory scheme and settled principles governing exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the civil suit challenging the inclusion of lands within municipal limits was not maintainable and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was upheld, and the interim order directing status quo was vacated.

Cause Title: Unchgaon Village Panchayat & Ors. v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 405)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocate Amol B. Karande, AOR; Advocates Ashutosh Srivastava, B. Lakshmi Pallesh, Akshada, Jarnail Singh; M/s S.M. Jadhav & Co.

Respondents: Advocate Abha R. Sharma, AOR; Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Diganta Gogoi, Praveen Kumar Pandey, Vikram Singh Dogra; Senior Advocate Vinay Navare with Advocates Yashodha Chandurkar, Manshi Jain

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: