Bombay High Court: Trial Court Has No Jurisdiction To Waive Mandatory 3-Month Notice Under Zilla Parishads And Village Panchayats Acts | Sets Aside Order, Rejects Suit As Not Maintainable
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, Single Bench of Justice Shailesh P. Brahme has quashed an order of the trial court and directed rejection of a civil suit. The court held that notices under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, are mandatory and cannot be waived by the trial court. The court stated that in the absence of compliance with these statutory requirements, the suit was not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the plaint stood rejected.
The revision applicants, original Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to challenge an order dated 01 October 2024, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in RCS No. 652 of 2024. The trial court had rejected the applicants' plea under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the plaint. The respondent had filed the suit for a declaration and injunction challenging his eviction from a shop allotted to him by the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
The respondent had been allotted shop no. 3 by the Zilla Parishad on 27 December 1999 upon depositing Rs. 5,000 and was engaged in grocery business. He claimed to be punctual in paying rent and taxes. Alleging that he was targeted due to political rivalry, the respondent challenged the eviction order dated 01 March 2024 and the subsequent eviction notice dated 15 July 2024, which directed him to vacate the shop within fifteen days. The suit was filed on 30 July 2024.
The applicants contended before the trial court that no notice was served under Section 280 of the Zilla Parishads Act, Section 80 of the CPC, or Section 180 of the Village Panchayats Act, rendering the suit not entertainable. They stated that such notices were mandatory and that the plaint lacked pleadings regarding any waiver or urgency. They also argued that no leave under Section 80(2) of the CPC was obtained and that the subsequent application seeking waiver of notice period was an afterthought.
The respondent argued that the eviction was arbitrary and high-handed. He claimed that the notice dated 24 July 2024 constituted sufficient compliance with Section 80 of the CPC and that urgency justified waiver of the notice period. He further contended that the revision was premature since the application for waiver was pending.
The High Court recorded that the suit was filed nine days after the issuance of the 24 July 2024 notice and noted the mandatory two-month notice period under Section 80 of the CPC. It observed that the provisions of the Zilla Parishads Act and the Village Panchayats Act require three months' notice and do not provide for waiver. The court stated that there were no pleadings regarding waiver or urgency in the plaint and that the trial court had erred in not distinguishing between these statutory provisions.
Justice Brahme stated, "Section 80 of CPC contemplates notice period of two months and sub-section (2) pertains to leave of the Court for waiver of the notice period. It is mandatory to issue such notice." The court noted, "The provisions of Section 280 of the Zilla Parishads Act and Section 180 of the Village Panchayats Act are not analogues to Section 80 of CPC." It further recorded, "Under Zilla Parishads Act or Village Panchayats Act, there is no provision for waiver of the notice period. Both the acts contemplate notice period of three months."
The judgment stated, "There is no pleading for the urgency to file civil suit by dispensing the notice period. When the suit was filed, there was nothing before trial Court to grant any waiver for notice period." The court observed, "The purport of the notice under three enactments referred above is to provide opportunity to rectify the mistake or to do the needful. Those are mandatory requirements and in the absence of the compliance, the suit is not entertainable."
Justice Brahme recorded, "There is no provision of waiver of notice period when action of authorities under Section of Zilla Parishads Act or action of authorities under Village Panchayats Act, is challenged. Learned Judge has committed error of jurisdiction in considering the provisions of Section 80(2) of CPC only." The court found that the application filed after the impugned order seeking waiver of notice was inconsequential.
The court distinguished various precedents cited by both parties, noting that many related only to Section 80 CPC and not to the other mandatory notices. It stated that the judgments cited did not apply where statutes provided no discretion to waive the notice period.
The court ordered, "Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 below Exhibit-25 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in RCS No.652/2024 is quashed and set aside and plaint in RCS No.652/2024 shall stand rejected." The Civil Revision Application was allowed in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pratik P. Kothari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. G. Kolse Patil, Advocate
Case Title: Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar & Ors. vs. Sandip Madhav Khase & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:19760
Case Number: Civil Revision Application No. 186 of 2024
Bench: Justice Shailesh P. Brahme
