Gram Panchayat Population Must Be Determined On Basis Of Last Published Census, Not Actual Head Count As On Date: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the expression “population” in Section 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be read in terms of its statutory definition, i.e., the figure recorded in the last published census, and not the number of persons actually residing in the area as on date.It held that a Gram Panchayat whose census population has fallen below 1,000 after a part of its area is taken into a municipality cannot claim to retain its separate identity by pointing to a higher present-day head count.Section 11-F of the Act, 1947 permits the State Government to declare, by notification, any area comprising a village or group of villages, having, so far as practicable, a population of one thousand, to be a Panchayat area. Section 2(l) of the Act defines “population” to mean the population as ascertained in the last preceding census, the relevant figures whereof have been published.The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,“The term “Population” referred to in Section 11-F of the Act, 1947 has to be interpreted in the light of its definition contained in Section 2(l) of the Act, 1947, wherein it is defined to mean the population as per the last census, the figures of which have been published.”Erstwhile Gram Panchayat Karua, Development Block Colonelganj, District Gonda, was a Gram Panchayat constituted under Section 12 of the Act, 1947, and petitioner no.1 was elected its Pradhan in the elections held in 2021-22. By a notification dated 21st October 2022 issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, a part of the area of Gram Panchayat Karua was brought within the territorial limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Colonelganj, reducing both its area and its population. Thereafter, by notification dated 19th April 2023 issued under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Act, 1947, the remaining area was merged into Gram Panchayat Kumhraura.The Pradhan and 293 others challenged the 2023 notification, contending that even after the exclusion, the remaining area had a population of 1,719, of whom 1,104 were voters, and therefore continued to meet the requirement of 1,000 under Section 11-F. It was argued that an incorrect report showing the remaining population as 785 as per the 2011 Census had been forwarded by the district authorities. It was submitted that representations against the proposed merger were never decided, and a three-member committee constituted by the Chief Development Officer to verify the position on the spot never completed its inquiry before the notification was issued. The petitioners argued that the entire exercise was illegal, arbitrary and founded on incorrect facts.The State's stand was that the de-notification was undertaken on the basis of the 2011 Census figures, according to which the population of the remaining area stood at 785.While entertaining the petition, the Court had granted the Collector, Gonda an opportunity to ascertain whether the petitioners were residents of Gaon Sabha Karua and whether the family details annexed to the petition were correct. The compliance affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj stated that out of the 1,719 persons claimed, 1,193 had produced Aadhaar cards and family registers.The Court observed that the petitioners' assertion that the actual population on the date of the notification exceeded 1,000 had not been controverted by the respondents. It held, however, that the assertion was of no legal consequence, since the statutory definition of “population” tied the figure to the last published census, admittedly that of 2011.The petitioners had also relied on Section 8 of the Act, 1947, which provides that where a part of the area of a Gram Panchayat is included in a municipality, its jurisdiction stands reduced by that part, to contend that the residual area had to continue as a Gram Panchayat in its own right. Rejecting the contention, the Court held,“If such an interpretation of Section 8 of the Act, 1947, is accepted, then even the reduced area of a Gram Panchayat having a population as low as 100, 50, or 10 would claim to retain its separate identity as a Gram Panchayat. Such an interpretation would render Section 11-F of the Act, 1947 nugatory.”It held that reduction of jurisdiction under Section 8 does not carry with it any assurance that the residual area will remain a Gram Panchayat where it does not otherwise satisfy the statutory requirements, and that Section 8 must be read in harmony with the remaining provisions of the Act. On the nature of the power exercised, the Court held that a notification under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Act, 1947 is an act of conditional legislation. Relying on Apex Court's decisions in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh, it observed,“The function of the State Government in issuing a notification under Section 3 of the Act, 1947 establishing a Gram Sabha and in issuing a...

Gram Panchayat Population Must Be Determined On Basis Of Last Published Census, Not Actual Head Count As On Date: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Gram Panchayat Population Must Be Determined On Basis Of Last Published Census, Not Actual Head Count As On Date: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers