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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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