-
by Admin
21 December 2025 7:40 AM
In a significant ruling on the interplay of Section 80 CPC and the special notice provisions under local governance statutes, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that a civil suit challenging eviction by public authorities under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, is not maintainable without prior compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under these statutes.
Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, deciding Civil Revision Application No. 186 of 2024 (Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar & Ors. v. Sandip Madhav Khase & Ors.), quashed the trial court’s order refusing to reject the plaint and directed that the suit itself stand rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The Dispute
The plaintiff, a shop allottee since 1999, claimed that his grocery shop in Hamidpur was sought to be taken away due to political rivalry. Following an eviction order dated 1 March 2024 and notice dated 15 July 2024, he filed RCS No. 652 of 2024 on 30 July 2024 seeking declaration and injunction. The defendants — Zilla Parishad officials and the Grampanchayat — argued that no statutory notices were served as mandated under Section 80 CPC, Section 280 of the Zilla Parishads Act, and Section 180 of the Village Panchayats Act.
Statutory Bar Emphasised
The Court observed that while Section 80(2) CPC allows waiver of the two-month notice period at the court’s discretion, the Zilla Parishads Act and the Village Panchayats Act prescribe a three-month notice requirement without any provision for waiver. Justice Brahme held:
“Unlike Section 80(2) of CPC, there is no discretion with the trial court to dispense with the period of notice while entertaining a challenge to the action of authorities under the Zilla Parishads Act or Village Panchayats Act. In other words, the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit by dispensing with the notice period.”
The High Court also noted the plaint was silent on any urgency justifying waiver under Section 80(2) CPC and that the plaintiff’s subsequent application for waiver was “inconsequential” as it was filed after the rejection plea had already been decided.
Purpose of Notice
Reiterating the object behind such statutory notices, the Court stated:
“The purport of the notice under these enactments is to provide an opportunity to rectify the mistake or to do the needful. Those are mandatory requirements, and in the absence of compliance, the suit is not entertainable.”
While both sides cited various Supreme Court and High Court precedents on Section 80 CPC, Justice Brahme distinguished them on the ground that they dealt solely with CPC notices and not with the concurrent, non-waivable notice provisions under the Zilla Parishads Act and the Village Panchayats Act.
Allowing the revision, the Court set aside the trial court’s 1 October 2024 order and ordered the rejection of the plaint in RCS No. 652 of 2024.
This ruling serves as a caution for litigants and advocates: in cases involving local self-government bodies in Maharashtra, compliance with all applicable statutory notice provisions is mandatory, and trial courts cannot waive the period under special statutes even if Section 80(2) CPC could otherwise apply.
Date of decision: 28/07/2025
