Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 405
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4684 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 10001 OF 2018]
UNCHGAON VILLAGE PANCHAYAT … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4685 OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 10532 OF 2018]
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 3208 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 10001 and 10532 of 2018.
2. These Appeals arise out of a dispute between the Unchgaon Village
1
Panchayat , Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur and the Kolhapur Municipal
2
Corporation concerning the exercise of jurisdiction over certain lands
situated in Village Uchgaon and the competence of a Civil Court to entertain
a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion that the said lands fall within
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.04.22
16:33:03 IST
Reason:
1
For short ‘Panchayat’
2
For short ‘Corporation’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 1 of 14
municipal limits. The Panchayat had instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 193
of 2013 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Corporation’s
proposed action pursuant to a public notice asserting such jurisdiction. The
rd 3
3 Joint Civil Judge , Junior Division, Kolhapur, held that it possessed
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and proceeded to grant interim injunction;
however, vide impugned judgment dated 22.02.2018, the High Court of
4
Judicature at Bombay , in Civil Revision Application No. 962 of 2014,
reversed that finding and held that the dispute could not be adjudicated by a
Civil Court, inter alia observing that matters relating to the extension of
municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations
5
Act, 1949 are legislative in nature. This also resulted in the dismissal of Writ
Petition No. 6003 of 2014 preferred by Panchayat, which had challenged the
6
District Judge, Kolhapur order vacating the interim injunction granted by
the Civil Court.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Panchayat has approached this Court by
preferring two separate Appeals. As both the Appeals arise from the same
controversy, they are being decided together. As far as Contempt Petition
arising out of Diary No.3208 of 2025 is concerned, the same is filed by one of
the intervenors alleging violation and wilful disobedience of the interim order
dated 03.05.2018 passed by this Court while issuing notice on the present
Appeals. By the said order, this Court directed the parties to maintain status
quo.
3
For short ‘Civil Court’
4
For short ‘High Court’
5
For short ‘MMC Act’
6
For short ‘Appellate Court’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 2 of 14
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The record discloses that the Panchayat was established in the year
7
1943 and is recognized under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ,
administering Village Uchgaon. On the other hand, the Corporation functions
under the provisions of the MMC Act.
5. On 29.01.2013, the Corporation published a public notice in the daily
newspaper “Pudhari”, which has wide circulation in the Kolhapur district,
declaring that lands bearing Revision Survey Nos. 84, 87, 91 to 97, 100 to
103, 118 to 120, 122 to 125, 134, 137, 138 and 143 of Village Uchgaon were
situated within the municipal limits of the Corporation. The notice further
stated that certain lands were affected by development plan reservations,
including DP Reservation No. 158 for Truck Terminus affecting Revision
Survey Nos. 100, 101, 103 and 123, and Reservation No. 157 for Dumping
Ground affecting portions of Survey Nos. 87, 89, 104 and 105.
6. The notice also indicated that constructions standing on the said lands
had allegedly been carried out without obtaining permission from the
Corporation and that such constructions were liable to be demolished within
a stipulated period.
7. According to the Panchayat, several of the lands mentioned in the
public notice were situated within the territorial jurisdiction and
administrative control of the Panchayat. The Panchayat asserted that these
lands had never been included within the limits of Corporation, either during
the period when the Kolhapur Municipal Bureau or Municipality existed or
7
For short ‘BVP Act’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 3 of 14
thereafter. It was further contended that the Panchayat had issued
commencement certificates and permissions for constructions on these lands
under the BVP Act, and that numerous structures had been constructed over
the years pursuant to such permissions.
8. The Panchayat also alleged that the Corporation had initiated steps to
demolish several structures standing on these lands, affecting the properties
of numerous residents, without following the due procedure required for
extension of municipal limits or for taking action against constructions.
9. Aggrieved by the publication of the said notice and the threatened
demolition of structures situated within the area administered by it, the
Panchayat instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 193 of 2013 before the Civil Court
seeking inter alia the following reliefs: (i) Declaration that none of the suit
properties had been validly included within the limits of Corporation; (ii)
Declaration that any extension of municipal limits purportedly including the
suit lands was illegal, wrongful, and not binding on the Panchayat; and (iii)
Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing
structures on the suit properties, or otherwise exercising jurisdiction over the
said lands.
10. Along with the plaint, the Panchayat filed an application for temporary
injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
8
1908 , seeking interim protection against demolition or other coercive actions
by the Corporation pending the disposal of the suit.
8
For short ‘CPC’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 4 of 14
11. In its defense, the Corporation relied upon certain historical
notifications allegedly issued on 14.08.1942, 12.07.1945 and 05.03.1946,
contending that the suit lands had already been included within the
municipal limits by virtue of those notifications. The Corporation also raised
an objection to the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court.
12. In particular, the Corporation contended that the action taken by it
pursuant to the public notice dated 29.01.2013 had been undertaken in its
capacity as a planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town
9
Planning Act, 1966 , and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 149 of
MRTP Act.
13. In this regard, the Civil Court framed a preliminary issue regarding
jurisdiction under Section 9A of the CPC and directed the parties to adduce
evidence on the said issue.
14. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the parties on the
preliminary issue, the Civil Court by its judgment dated 06.09.2013 held that
it did possess jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Civil Court
observed that the dispute involved mixed questions of fact and law,
particularly regarding the determination of which properties were actually
included within the municipal limits and which remained within the
jurisdiction of the Panchayat. It was, therefore, held that such issues would
have to be decided after a full trial and evidence on merits. Thereafter, by
order dated 22.11.2013, the Civil Court allowed the Panchayat’s application
9
For short ‘MRTP Act’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 5 of 14
for interim injunction and restrained the Corporation from taking action
pursuant to the public notice dated 29.01.2013.
15. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2013 granting injunction, the
Corporation filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2013 before the
Appellate Court. Meanwhile, the Corporation also challenged the Civil Court’s
judgment dated 06.09.2013 on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction by filing
Civil Revision Application No. 962 of 2014 before the High Court.
16. By judgment dated 02.05.2014, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal
filed by the Corporation and set aside the order of injunction dated
22.11.2013 granted by the Civil Court.
17. Challenging the aforesaid Appellate Court’s order, the Panchayat filed
Writ Petition No. 6003 of 2014 before the High Court. On 27.05.2014, the
High Court granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status
quo .
18. Vide judgment dated 22.02.2018, the High Court allowed the Civil
Revision Application No. 962 of 2014 filed by Corporation and set aside the
order dated 06.09.2013 of Civil Court and held that the Civil Court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, Regular Civil Suit No. 193 of
2013 filed by the Panchayat came to be dismissed. The High Court held, inter
alia , that the exercise of powers under Section 3 of the MMC Act, relating to
extension of municipal limits, was legislative in nature and, therefore, could
not be questioned before a Civil Court.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 6 of 14
19. Placing reliance on its judgment dated 22.02.2018 rendered in Civil
Revision Application No. 962 of 2014, the High Court, on the same date,
dismissed Writ Petition No. 6003 of 2014, affirming the Appellate Court’s
order setting aside the interim injunction, essentially on the ground that the
Civil Court itself lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
20. Aggrieved by these two judgments, the Panchayat had filed the present
Appeals before this Court.
21. While issuing notice in the present Appeals on 03.05.2018, this Court
had ordered status quo to be maintained by both the parties.
B. SUBMISSIONS
22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the materials on record.
23. Learned counsel for Panchayat has argued that the concerned revision
survey numbers mentioned in the public notice dated 29.01.2013 and the
entire land in area of Village Uchgaon falls within the jurisdiction of Panchayat
and the Corporation has no concern with the same.
24. Learned counsel for Panchayat points out that the Corporation has
failed to produce the notification dated 30.06.1945 which brought the
concerned lands under its limits. It is further stated that no other document
has been brought on record to show the disputed area in limits of Corporation.
25. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for Panchayat that the
public notice dated 29.01.2013 issued by the Corporation never included the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 7 of 14
concerned revision survey numbers and no notice or hearing opportunity were
given to the Panchayat.
26. Lastly, the learned counsel for Panchayat has emphasised that the bar
under Section 149 of the MRTP Act will not apply and the Civil Court was
right in holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed
by the Panchayat.
27. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Corporation has supported the
impugned judgment(s) of the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that the
determination and extension of municipal limits is governed by Section 3 of
the MMC Act, which is a legislative function, and any challenge thereto cannot
be entertained in a civil suit by way of declaratory relief.
28. Learned counsel for the Corporation also submitted that the public
notice dated 29.01.2013 was issued by the Corporation in its capacity as a
planning authority under the MRTP Act, and that the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts is expressly barred under Section 149 of the said Act.
29. Lastly, the learned counsel for Corporation has submitted that the High
Court has rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in holding that the Civil
Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Panchayat.
C. ANALYSIS
30. The central issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeals
is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain Regular Civil Suit No.
193 of 2013, in which the Panchayat sought declarations to the effect that the
lands in question were not included within the municipal limits of the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 8 of 14
Corporation and that any such inclusion or extension of limits was illegal and
not binding upon it.
31. In determining the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary to examine
the true nature and substance of the reliefs claimed and the real controversy
between the parties, rather than the form in which the reliefs are couched.
32. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the principal relief sought by the
Panchayat is a declaration that the lands bearing the revision survey numbers
mentioned in the public notice dated 29.01.2013 do not form part of the
municipal limits of the Corporation. The Panchayat has further sought a
declaration that any extension of municipal limits so as to include these lands
is illegal and not binding, along with consequential relief of injunction
restraining the Corporation from acting upon such assertion of jurisdiction.
33. The dispute, therefore, in essence, relates to the determination and
extent of municipal limits and the authority of the Corporation to exercise
jurisdiction over the lands in question.
34. The specification and alteration of municipal limits is governed by
Section 3 of the MMC Act, which can be read as follows:
“ 3. Specification of larger urban areas and constitution
of Corporations.—
(1) The Corporation for every City constituted under this
Act existing on the date of coming into force of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal
Councils (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Mah. XLI of 1994),
specified as a larger urban area in the notification issued
in respect thereof under clause (1) of article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India, shall be deemed to be a duly
constituted Municipal Corporation for the larger urban
area so specified forming a City, known by the name “ The
Municipal Corporation of the City of ............... ”.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 9 of 14
(1A) The Corporation of the City of Nagpur incorporated
under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (C.P. and
Berar II of 1950) for the larger urban area specified in the
notification issued in this respect under clause (2) of
article 243-Q of the Constitution of India shall, on and
from the date of coming into force of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations (Amendment) and the City of
Nagpur Corporation (Repeal) Act, 2011 (Mah. XXIII of
2012), be deemed to have been constituted under this Act
and accordingly the provisions of this Act shall apply to
the area of the City of Nagpur.
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the State
Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned
in clause (1) of article 243-Q of the Constitution of India,
specify by notification in the Official Gazette, any urban
area with a population of not less than three lakhs as a
larger urban area.
(2A) Every larger urban area so specified by the State
Government under sub-section (2), shall form a City and
there shall be a Municipal Corporation for such larger
urban area known by the name of the ‘‘Municipal
Corporation of the City of .............”.
(3) (a) Subject to the provision of sub-section (2), the
State Government may also from time to time after
consultation with the Corporation by notification in
the Official Gazette alter the limits specified for any
city under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) so as to
include therein or to exclude therefrom, such area as
is specified in the notification.
(b) Where any area is included within the limits of the
larger urban area under clause (a), any appointments,
notifications, notices, taxes, orders, schemes,
licences, permissions, rules, by-laws or forms made,
issued, imposed or granted under this Act or any other
law, which are for the time being in force in the larger
urban area shall, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force but save as
otherwise provided in section 129A or any other
provision of this Act, apply to and be in force in the
additional area also from the date that area is included
in the larger urban area.
(4) The power to issue a notification under this section
shall be subject to the conditions of previous publication:
Provided that, where the population of any urban
area, in respect of which a Council has been constituted
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships
Act, 1965 (Mah. XL of 1965), as per the latest census
figures has exceeded three lakhs, the State Government
may, for the purpose of constituting a Corporation under
this Act for such urban area, with the same boundaries,
dispense with the condition of previous publication of the
notification under this section.”
(emphasis supplied)
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 10 of 14
35. A perusal of the 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.
36. Once such determination is made in exercise of statutory power, 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. In
addition, the action impugned by the Panchayat arises out of a public notice
dated 29.01.2013 issued by the Corporation in its capacity as a planning
authority under the MRTP Act, alleging unauthorized constructions and
proposing action thereon. Insofar as such action is taken under the
framework of the said Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is expressly barred
10
under Section 149 of the MRTP Act, in respect of matters which the
authorities under the Act are empowered to determine.
37. The reliefs sought in the suit by the Panchayat, though framed as
declarations and injunctions, are in substance directed towards restraining
the Corporation from exercising powers traceable to statutory authority under
the aforesaid enactments. The contention of the Panchayat that the lands in
question were never included within municipal limits, and that the dispute
10
149. Finality of orders.— Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order
passed or direction issued by the State Government or order passed or notice issued by
any Regional Board, Planning Authority or Development Authority under this Act shall
be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 11 of 14
involves mixed questions of fact and law, does not alter the essential nature
of the controversy.
38. Even where factual disputes exist, if their adjudication would
necessarily involve examination of the validity or effect of statutory
determinations relating to municipal limits or actions taken under special
statutes, the Civil Court would lack jurisdiction. The existence of disputed
questions of fact does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction where, in law, the
subject matter of the dispute lies outside the domain of the Civil Court.
39. There is yet another aspect which merits consideration. From the
evidence on record, including the testimony of the Panchayat’s witness-
Sachin Ankush Deshmukh, the Deputy Sarpanch, as noted by the High
Court, it emerges that the inclusion of the concerned areas within the
municipal limits was not a recent exercise but was traceable to earlier
notifications and arrangements which had remained in force for a
considerable period since the year 1945.
40. In such circumstances, even proceeding on the basis of the Panchayat’s
case, a challenge to the inclusion of lands within the municipal limits effected
in exercise of statutory power under Section 3 of the MMC Act, cannot be
permitted to be raised belatedly after the lapse of several decades. The exercise
of such power, being legislative in character, attains a degree of finality, and
cannot be unsettled in collateral civil proceedings at the instance of a local
Panchayat body at a much later point of time.
41. The conduct of the Panchayat in permitting development and
administrative arrangements to subsist over the years without any timely
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 12 of 14
challenge to the inclusion of the lands within municipal limits, also militates
against the grant of declaratory relief in a civil suit. Such belated assertions
cannot be entertained so as to disturb a position that has long attained
certainty.
42. The Civil Court, in holding that the issue involved mixed questions of
fact and law and, therefore, required a full-fledged trial, failed to appreciate
that the question of jurisdiction must be determined at the threshold based
on the nature of the reliefs claimed.
43. The reliefs sought by the Panchayat are not confined to enforcement of
private civil rights but are directed towards invalidating the assertion of
statutory authority by the Corporation in relation to municipal limits and
planning control, which are matters falling within the domain of public law.
Such a challenge cannot be effectively adjudicated in a civil suit, which is
designed for determination of civil rights inter se parties, and not for
examining the validity of legislative or statutory actions of the State or its
instrumentalities. We say so especially on the peculiar facts of this case.
44. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, has correctly
appreciated the nature of the dispute and concluded that the Civil Court
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We find no error in the approach
adopted by the High Court. The view taken is consistent with the statutory
scheme and settled principles governing exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction.
45. Insofar as the challenge to the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6003 of
2014 is concerned, the same was consequential to the finding that the Civil
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 13 of 14
Court itself lacked jurisdiction. Once such a finding is upheld, the dismissal
of the writ petition does not warrant separate interference.
46. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present Appeals. The
Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
47. Considering that we have dismissed the Appeals, the interim order
dated 03.05.2018 directing status quo stands vacated. In that view of the
matter, nothing further survives in the contempt proceedings arising out of
Diary No.3208 of 2025. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
48. Pending applications, including the application(s) seeking
intervention/impleadment, stand disposed of accordingly.
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
………………………………………J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 22, 2026.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10001/2018 etc. Page 14 of 14