'Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction' : Supreme Court In Boundary Dispute Between Maharashtra Panchayat & Municipality

The Supreme Court has observed that an issue related to the determination of municipal limits, being subject to determination as per the relevant statutes, cannot be decided by the civil courts.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the Bombay High Court decision, which set aside the District Court's decision to decide the dispute over the determination of the Municipal limits between the Municipal Corporation and a village panchayat.

“…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 Court said, emphasizing that civil courts lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute over the determination of municipal limits, as the area is exclusively reserved for the legislative consideration.

The case arose from a 2013 public notice issued by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation asserting that certain lands in Uchgaon village fell within its municipal limits and warning of demolition of unauthorized constructions. The Panchayat contested this claim, asserting that the lands were under its jurisdiction and that it had lawfully granted permissions for construction.

Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the Panchayat approached a Civil Court. While the trial court initially upheld its jurisdiction and granted interim protection, the decision was overturned by appellate courts and eventually by the Bombay High Court, prompting the Panchayat to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed that the determination of municipal limits under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is a legislative function, and therefore not justiciable in a civil suit.

“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.”, the court observed, pointing out that the presence of disputed facts does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Courts if the subject matter itself falls outside their domain.

“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.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal, and the interim injunction imposed against the Respondent was vacated.

Cause Title: UNCHGAON VILLAGE PANCHAYAT VERSUS KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. M/s S.m. Jadhav And Company, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akshada, Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Adv, Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh Dogra, Adv. Mr. Nitish Kumar Paswan, Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Ms. Akshada, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv.