Civil Courts cannot entertain suits challenging notices of unauthorized construction unless a clear case of nullity is demonstrated, as per statutory provisions under Section 433A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts is routinely invoked by recipients of notices issued by the municipal and planning authorities alleging unauthorised constructions despite specific provisions in the statues governing those authorities barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Ordinarily, the inherent jurisdiction of Civil Courts permits it to try and entertain every suit. The ‘bar of jurisdiction’ provisions are incorporated in all statutes regulating the construction and development activities in urban areas of the State of Maharashtra, which has over 50% population residing in urban areas. The ‘bar of jurisdiction’ provisions in various municipal and planning statutes are aimed at preventing delays in taking action against unauthorised development activities in urban areas as such activities mar the urban planning objectives. Such ‘bar of jurisdiction’ provisions are to be found in Section 515-A of Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act, 1888, Section 433-A of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, etc. These two Civil Revision Applications raise an issue of seminal importance relating to jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits by Civil Courts involving challenges to notices issued by municipal and planning authorities alleging unauthorised construction in the light of provisions under various statutes barring jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

THE CHALLENGE

2. In the present case, jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain Suit concerning notices issued under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (the MMC Act) in the light of the provisions of Section 433A of the MMC Act was questioned by the Defendants and by the impugned order, the Civil Court has held that the Suit is not barred under Section 433A of the MMC Act. Accordingly, order dated 8 October 2015 rejecting the Application at Exhibit-23 filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) seeking rejection of the Plaint is under challenge in Revision Applications filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2- Nashik Municipal Corporation (Civil Revision Application No.153 of 2016) and by Defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Civil Revision Application No.679 of 2016).

FACTS

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the Revision Applications are that Respondent No.1-Sunil Baburao Kshirsagar claims to be the tenant in respect of the suit property comprising of a shop structure of ground plus two floors situated at House No.1373C, Final plot No.193, City Survey No.627/A/1/1B in Trimbak Naka area of Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik. It is claimed by Respondent No.1 that his father used to operate business in the name of “Sunil Hoodmaker” in the suit premises and after death of his father, Respondent No.1 is operating the shop. The father of Respondent No.1 was a tenant of Shri Ramakant Vitthal Tapkire, Subhash Vitthal Tapkire and Shashikant Vitthal Tapkire, and after his father’s death Respondent No.1a is the tenant in respect of the suit premises. That Tapkires had attempted to somehow evict Respondent No.1 from the suit premises which led to filing of Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2013 in which status quo order has been passed. On 20 April 2013, Takpires sold the property in favour of Applicants in Civil Revision Application No.679 of 2016 who are Defendant Nos.3 to 4 in the Suit.

4. It is the case of Respondent No.1 that the new purchasers (Defendant Nos.3 and 4) complained to Nashik Municipal Corporation against th