1. The Appellant has filed the present Second Appeal praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18th February 2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Khed, District Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Appeal No.06 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present Appellant came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed. The Appellant has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25th March 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed, District Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2020.

FACTS

2. The original Plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity claiming that the area shown in the suit map by the letters “A-B-C-D-E-F” is popularly and historically known as “Madhali Wadi” situated at Village Ghanekhunt, District Ratnagiri.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the said locality has been consistently recorded as “Madhali Wadi” in the revenue records since time immemorial. According to the Plaintiffs, the locality has its own historical significance inasmuch as the traditional Palakhi procession during the Shimga festival is first taken to Madhali Wadi. It is further contended that there are about 65 residential houses situated in the locality and occupied by various residents and that the locality has always been known and referred to as “Madhali Wadi” in official as well as public records.

4. It is further contended that Village Ghanekhunt came to be separated from Village Lote in the year 1975. According to the Plaintiffs, certain persons bearing the surname “Dhapase”, after becoming members of the Gram Panchayat, misused their position and caused the name of “Madhali Wadi” to be wrongly recorded as “Dhapase Wadi” in the Gram Panchayat and assessment records.

5. The Plaintiffs have further contended that the primary school situated in the locality continues to be known and recorded as “Zilla Parishad Primary School, Ghanekhunt, Madhali Wadi”, which, according to them, further establishes the identity of the locality as “Madhali Wadi”. However, the Defendants have illegally changed the name appearing on the Zilla Parishad School Board, ST Stand and the entry gate of Madhali Wadi. The Plaintiffs and other residents of Madhali Wadi made several representations to the Government Authorities. However, no remedial action was taken, thereby constraining the Plaintiffs to institute the present suit for declaration. The Defendants filed their written statements opposing the suit claim. It was contended that the address of Plaintiff No.1 in the election records of the year 2007 itself showed “Dhapase Wadi/Talevadi” and that even in the year 2017 the address was shown as “Dhapase Wadi”. It was further contended that the Palakhi of the deity proceeds only to Dhapase Wadi and not to Madhali Wadi.

6. It was further contended that, upon representations being made, the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri directed convening of a Gram Sabha on 11th April 2012. In the said Gram Sabha, 293 villagers were present, out of whom 257 villagers voted in favour of recording the name as “Dhapase Wadi”, whereas only 36 villagers supported “Madhali Wadi”. On the basis of the majority decision taken in the Gram Sabha, the Collector passed an order dated 3rd August 2012 directing that the name of the disputed locality be recorded as “Dhapase Wadi”. The said order was never challenged by the Plaintiffs or any of the residents and has therefore attained finality. It was contended that the declaration sought in the suit would virtually amount to challenging the order dated 3rd August 2012 and that the suit was therefore barred by limitation. It was further contended that after the Collector’s order dated 3rd August 2012 there were no official records referring to the area as “Madhali Wadi” and even the electricity bills and election cards of the Plaintiffs reflected the address as “Dhapase Wadi”. Hence, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

7. Defendant No.3 – Tahsildar, Khed also filed a written statement contending that the Gram Sabha was specifically convened on 11th April 2012 for determining the name of the locality. Out of 293 villagers present, 257 voted in favour of “Dhapase Wadi” while the remaining villagers supported “Madhali Wadi”. Pursuant thereto, the Collector passed an order dated 3rd August 2012 directing the change of name. Hence, Defendant No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 – Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer also filed written statements supporting the stand taken by Defendant No.3.

9. The learned Trial Court also relied upon the admissions given by the defence witness, Sudhir Sonawane, Tahsildar, Khed, that there is no legal provision for changing the name of a locality merely by passing a Gram Sabha Resolution. The learned Trial Court further relied upon the communication dated 12th December 2017 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, clarifying that there is no provision for changing the name of a Wadi. Relying upon the said communication and the testimony of Sudhir Sonwane, Tahsildar, Khed, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the change of name from “Madhali Wadi” to “Dhapase Wadi” was illegal and unsupported by any statutory provision and accordingly decreed the suit.

10. The learned First Appellate Court also examined the issues in detail. It found that the stand taken by the Defendants that the locality was never known as “Madhali Wadi” was inconsistent with their own case that a Gram Sabha Resolution was passed on 11th April 2012 for changing the name to “Dhapase Wadi”. Had the locality already been known as “Dhapase Wadi”, there would have been no occasion to pass such a resolution. The learned First Appellate Court also found that there existed no statutory provision enabling change of the name of a locality, though provisions existed for changing the name of a village. The learned First Appellate Court further rejected the contention regarding want of notice under Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act by holding that Section 180 applies only to acts done in discharge of statutory duties. Since the Defendants themselves failed to show any statutory provision authorising change of the name of a locality, the defence based on Section 180 was rejected by the First Appellate Court.

11. The appellants' Gram Panchayat has thus challenged both the judgments in the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the following substantial questions of law are involved in the present Appeal:

                    (a) Whether the Civil Suit was impliedly barred in view of Section 54 (c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 which states that the decision taken by the majority of the Gram Sabha shall be binding, and therefore the aforesaid provision ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate the civil rights arising out of the Gram Sabha Resolution?

                    (b) Whether the suit filed for declaration was barred by limitation, as the same indirectly challenges the Gram Sabha Resolution passed in the year 2012?

                    (c) Whether Articles 243A and 243B of the Constitution of India cover matters of local governance and, therefore, the Resolution dated 11th April 2012 changing the name of the area from "Madhali Wadi" to "Dhapase Wadi" ought to have been held to be valid?

12. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. Perusal of the record shows that Section 54(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act nowhere prohibits the filing of a Civil Suit of the nature filed by the Plaintiffs herein. There is no specific express bar provided under Section 54(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The aforesaid provision merely provides an internal dispute resolution mechanism within the Panchayat framework and does not prohibit the filing of a Civil Suit seeking the declaration of the nature sought by the Plaintiffs. It is almost a settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be readily inferred, and such exclusion must be expressly provided in the Act itself. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to examine the legality, validity and effect of the impugned Gram Sabha Resolution is a matter to be decided on merits, depending upon the nature of the dispute and the civil consequences flowing therefrom. In my view, there is no express or implied bar prohibiting the filing of the suit. The Civil Suit filed by the Plaintiffs was, therefore, maintainable and was rightly entertained. The aforesaid substantial question of law (a) is, therefore, answered accordingly.

13. In so far as question of law (b) is concerned, perusal of the plaint would show that the Plaintiffs have not prayed for a declaration that the Gram Sabha Resolution dated 11th April 2012 is invalid. The Plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the subject area at Ghanekhunt be referred to as "Madhali Wadi" and for consequential directions in that regard. The learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Plaintiffs were not seeking any declaration regarding the illegality or nullity of the Gram Sabha Resolution passed in the year 2012. The relief sought was limited to issuance of directions to record the name of the locality as "Madhali Wadi". Since there was no prayer to declare the Resolution as invalid, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The aforesaid question of law (b) is, therefore, answered accordingly.

In so far as question of law (c) is concerned, it is almost settled law that Articles 243A and 243B of the Constitution of India confer ample powers upon the Gram Sabha in matters of local governance. However, since there was no statutory procedure for changing the name of a locality or area, merely passing a Gram Sabha Resolution could not have been held to be a valid procedure for effecting such change. The communication dated 12th December 2017 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai itself suggests that there was no such procedure or provision for changing the name of a Wadi. Moreover, the Resolution dated 11th April 2012 purportedly passed by the Gram Panchayat itself would suggest that the area was not known as "Dhapase Wadi" anytime ealrier but was known as "Madhali Wadi". The witness examined by Defendant No.3, Sudhir Sonawane, Tahsildar, Khed, had himself admitted that the locality consisted of residents belonging to various surnames other than "Dhapase". He had further admitted that neither the Gram Panchayat nor the Election Commission had any authority to change the name of a locality. Article 243A provides framing of the rules by the State Government. The passing of a resolution in the absence of prescribed regulations would not by itself prohibit the Trial Court in passing the decree as sought for, after considering the evidence led by both parties to that effect. Thus, the aforesaid question of law (c) is answered accordingly.

14. Thus, taking into consideration the findings recorded by both the Lower Courts below, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the Lower Courts below. No other substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal.

15. The present Second Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

16. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, interim application No.726 of 2026 does not survive and the same accordingly is disposed of.