President,Manmad Municipal Council v. Ashok Ananda Sonawane & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Balkrishna Joshi, Advocate, for the Applicants None for the Respondents CORAM DATE : : R.C.CHAVAN, J. 4TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the Order passed by the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandwad holding that he had jurisdiction to try the suit filed against the Plaintiff - Municipal Council.
The learned Counsel for the Applicants states that in view of provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, 2 CRA 473-10 jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division to try the suit is barred. The provisions of Section 59 read as under :- (cid:28) 59. Decision of claims to property by or against Panchayat :- In any village 4*** where any property or any right, in or any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Panchayat, or by any person against the Panchayat, it shall be lawful for the Collector, after formal enquiry, of which due notice has been given, to pass an order deciding the claim. (2) Any suit instituted in any Civil Court after the expiration of one year from the date of the communication of any order passed by the Collector under sub-section (1), or if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then, from the date of the communication of any order passed by the final appellate authority, as determined according to Section 204 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879)5 (Bom. V of 1879) 6 *** sub-section (2) of Section 158 of the Hydrabad Land Revenue Code, 1317 (Hyd. VII of 1317 F) fasli, or Section 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (M.P.Act II of 1955), shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that the plaintiff has received due notice of such order. (3)(a) The powers conferred by this Section on the Collector may be 3 CRA 473-10 exercised also by an Assistant or Deputy Collector or by a Survey Officer or such other officer appointed under any of the Acts referred to in sub-section(2). (b) The formal inquiry referred to in this Section shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions relating to such enquiry under the Acts referred to in sub-section(2). (c) A person shall be deemed to have due notice of any inquiry or order under this Section if notice thereof has been given in the prescribed manner. (cid:29)
This Section only shows that a suit cannot be filed after one year from the date of communication of order passed by the Collector or his higher ups, on a dispute in respect of any property in a village. Allotment of the land by the Collector to the Applicant - Municipality in the year 1972 does not mean that the dispute had been resolved by the Collector in the year 1972. The village panchayat (plaintiff in the suit) is neither shown to have raised dispute before the Collector, nor is any order passed by the Collector on such a dispute, one year prior to filing of suit. Section 59 itself will show 4 CRA 473-10 that suit itself is not barred. Therefore, objections based on Section 59 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 were rightly repealed by the learned Trial Judge.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant next submitted that in view of Section 32 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1948 the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division would have no jurisdiction to try the suit since this suit is in respect of the land which has been alloted by the Government to the Municipal and is thus in respect of Government property. He also submitted that the Chief Officer is an appointee of the Government and a Government servant and therefore, suit would not lie before Civil Judge, Junior Division. Both these contentions are fallacious. First, this suit is not in respect of the Government property. It is in respect of the land given by the Government to the Municipality. Secondly, the Chief Officer of the 5 CRA 473-10 Municipality may be an appointee of the Government, but he is arrayed as Defendant in his capacity as Chief Officer representing Municipal Council. The Bombay Civil Courts Act does not bar suits against the Municipal Councils or its officers from the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division and therefore, the Civil Judge, Junior Division cannot be said to have erred in rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction raised by the Applicant.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.