Panchayat area population must be determined by last preceding census, not current actual population.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the de-notification of a Gram Panchayat based on population figures from the "last preceding census" (2011) is valid when the current actual population allegedly exceeds the statutory threshold.

The court held

Since the 2011 Census (the last published census) showed the remaining population of Karua to be 785, the State was justified in merging it with an adjoining Panchayat to meet the statutory requirement of 1,000

It also directed

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notification dated April 19, 2023, was valid. No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged a notification dated April 19, 2023, which de-notified Gram Panchayat Karua and merged its remaining area into Gram Panchayat Kumhraura

¶ 2

Initially, a portion of Karua was included in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Colonelganj, via a 2022 notification under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916

¶ 4

Following this exclusion, the State determined that Karua’s remaining population, based on the 2011 Census, was 785—falling below the statutory minimum of 1,000 required for an independent Gram Panchayat

¶ 5, 15

Petitioner No. 1 (the elected Pradhan) and others contended that the actual current population exceeded 1,719 with 1,104 voters, making the de-notification arbitrary and based on obsolete data

¶ 6, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the de-notification of a Gram Panchayat based on population figures from the "last preceding census" (2011) is valid when the current actual population allegedly exceeds the statutory threshold.

¶ 17, 24

ii.2. Whether the remaining area of a Gram Panchayat whose jurisdiction is reduced by a municipality extension automatically retains its independent identity under Section 8 of the Act.

¶ 28, 30

iii.3. Whether the State’s exercise of power under Sections 3 and 11-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act constitutes an administrative or a legislative act.

¶ 43, 44

03Law Applied

Section 2(l) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which defines "Population" as the figures ascertained in the last preceding published census

¶ 23

Section 11-F mandates that a Panchayat area shall, so far as practicable, have a population of 1,000

¶ 21

Section 8 outlines the effect of including Gram Panchayat areas into municipalities, noting jurisdiction is reduced by that part

¶ 29

The declaration of Panchayat areas is an act of conditional legislation, not a quasi-judicial or administrative act, as established in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh.

¶ 42, 43

Provisions in the judgment · 16

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 Section 12Section 2Section 3Section 8Section 11

U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 Section 3Section 4Section 5Section 256

Uttar Pradesh Town Areas Act, 1914 Section 3

Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 Section 3Section 4Section 10Section 35

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 Section 241

Solicitors Act, 1957 Section 56

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that "Population" is a strictly defined legal term under Section 2(l), tethering the State’s power to the 2011 Census rather than contemporary estimates or voter lists

¶ 24, 27

Although the petitioners claimed a current population of 1,719, the court held it could not interpret the statute in a manner that renders the technical definition of "Population" or the 1,000-person threshold under Section 11-F nugatory

¶ 27, 28

Regarding Section 8, the court clarified that while jurisdiction is reduced when land is ceded to a municipality, the remaining area must still meet the Section 11-F criteria to remain an independent body

¶ 30

Because the notification was classified as conditional legislation, the court found that the State was not bound by principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) in the absence of a specific statutory requirement for a hearing, and the petitioners failed to prove any violation of the prescribed procedural guidelines

¶ 44, 47