Census 2011 Figures, Not Actual Headcount, Govern Gram Panchayat De-Notification, Allahabad HC Rules

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a challenge to the de-notification of Gram Panchayat Karua, holding that statutory "population" means Census 2011 figures, not the actual count on the date of the order.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a Division Bench judgment delivered by Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai (sitting with Justice Alok Mathur), has dismissed a writ petition filed by Gudia Goswami — elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Karua, Development Block Colonelganj, District Gonda — and 293 other petitioners. They had challenged a State Government notification dated 19 April 2023 that de-notified their Gram Panchayat and merged its remaining area into the adjoining Gram Panchayat Kumhraura. The court held that the word “population” as used in Section 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 carries a precise statutory meaning tied to the last published census, and that the actual population on the ground at the time of de-notification is legally irrelevant. Separately, the bench characterised the notification as an act of conditional legislation, placing it beyond the reach of the natural justice challenge the petitioners tried to press.

How Gram Panchayat Karua Was Reduced and Then De-Notified

Gram Panchayat Karua was constituted under Section 12 of the Act, 1947. In the elections held in 2021–22, petitioner no. 1, Gudia Goswami, was elected as Pradhan. The five-year term of the Gram Panchayat was due to end on 1 May 2026.

The sequence that led to the de-notification began with a notification dated 21 October 2022 issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. That notification extended the territorial limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Colonelganj, District Gonda, absorbing a portion of Gram Panchayat Karua within the urban local body. Once an area is included within a municipality under Section 5 of the Act, 1916, it becomes subject to that statute and the identity of the relevant Gram Panchayat or its part ceases to exist within that area.

The absorption into the Nagar Palika Parishad reduced both the area and the population of Gram Panchayat Karua. The State then issued the impugned notification dated 19 April 2023 under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Act, 1947, merging the remaining area of Gram Panchayat Karua with Gram Panchayat Kumhraura in the same Development Block. The stated reason in Entry No. 268 of that notification was that the remaining area of Gram Panchayat Karua, as measured by Census 2011 figures, had a population of only 785 — below the minimum of 1,000 required under Section 11-F.

The Dispute Before the Court: Actual Population Versus Census Population

The petitioners' core grievance was factual: they argued that even after the area absorbed into Nagar Palika Parishad was excluded, the remaining population of Gram Panchayat Karua stood at 1,719, of whom 1,104 were voters. They submitted that this comfortably exceeded the statutory minimum of 1,000 under Section 11-F, and that therefore the de-notification was without legal basis.

They challenged three things: the notification dated 19 April 2023 insofar as it related to item no. 268 (de-notification of Village Panchayat Karua); the report dated 11 April 2023 submitted by district officials recommending de-notification; and sought a direction to restore Gram Panchayat Karua to its pre-notification status, with the intervening period excluded from the five-year tenure.

The route to this writ petition was not direct. Earlier, petitioner no. 1 had submitted a representation on 1 March 2023 to the Chief Development Officer, Gonda, after learning that an allegedly incorrect report had been forwarded by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The Chief Development Officer had then, on 31 March 2023, constituted a three-member Committee headed by the District Development Officer to conduct spot and documentary verification. Despite that committee being constituted, the de-notification notification was issued on 19 April 2023 before the inquiry was completed.

A prior writ petition, Writ-C No. 3297 of 2023, had been filed and disposed of on 25 April 2023, directing the inquiry to be completed unless there existed a legal impediment. However, by the time that order was served, the notification had already been issued. The petitioners thereafter submitted a representation dated 25 May 2023 to the Director, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow, under Rule 3-AAA(2) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the court passed an interim order on 18 February 2025 directing the Collector, District Gonda, to ascertain whether all 293 petitioners were residents of Gram Sabha Karua and whether the family member details in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition were correct. The inquiry that followed, conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj, found that out of the 1,719 persons claimed, only 1,193 had submitted Aadhaar cards and Pariwar Registers. Critically, the inquiry report dated 14 April 2025 confirmed that the de-notification exercise had been based on the 2011 Census population figure of 785 — and that the petitioners' claim of a larger population related to the actual population at the time of de-notification, not census data.

The Statutory Definition of "Population" and How the Court Read It

The bench identified the pivotal legal question as: whether a de-notification under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Act, 1947 based on Census 2011 data was valid when no exercise was undertaken to determine the current population at the time of issuing the notification.

Section 11-F of the Act, 1947 provides that the State Government may, by notification, declare any area comprising a village or group of villages to be a Panchayat area, having, “so far as practicable, a population of one thousand.” The sub-section also empowers the government to modify a Panchayat area or declare that any area shall cease to be a Panchayat area.

Section 2(l) of the Act, 1947 defines “Population” to mean the population as ascertained in the last preceding census, the relevant figures of which have been published. The 2011 Census is the last such census. The bench held that wherever the word “population” appears in the Act, 1947, it must bear that defined meaning. Since the population of the remaining area of Gram Panchayat Karua as per Census 2011 was 785 — a figure the petitioners did not dispute — the precondition for retaining an independent Panchayat area under Section 11-F was not fulfilled.

The court declined to read “population” as the actual count on the date of de-notification. It observed that such a reading would require the court to interpret a statutory provision contrary to its express terms, which falls outside the scope of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the Section 8 Argument

The petitioners pressed Section 8 of the Act, 1947, which provides that if the whole area of a Gram Panchayat is included in a city, municipality, cantonment, notified area or Nagar Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat shall cease; but if only a part is so included, its jurisdiction shall be reduced by that part. They argued that upon partial inclusion in Nagar Palika Parishad, Gram Panchayat Karua should have been permitted to retain its reduced jurisdiction as an independent Gram Panchayat.

The bench rejected this. Section 8, it held, must be read in consonance with the other provisions of the Act, 1947, particularly Section 11-F. Reducing the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat under Section 8 does not automatically entitle the reduced area to retain separate Gram Panchayat status if it no longer meets the statutory population requirement. The court observed that accepting the petitioners' interpretation would mean that a Gram Panchayat with a remaining population of 100, 50, or even 10 could claim independent status, which would render Section 11-F nugatory.

Why the Notification Is Conditional Legislation, Not an Administrative Act

A significant portion of the judgment addressed the character of the power exercised by the State Government under Sections 3 and 11-F. The bench held, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur reported in (1980) 2 SCC 295 and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 7, that the function of issuing a notification under Section 3 or Section 11-F of the Act, 1947 is legislative — specifically, an act of conditional legislation — and not executive or administrative.

In conditional legislation, the enforcement of the law depends on the fulfilment of prescribed conditions. The authority exercising the power is not performing an adjudicatory function; it is determining whether the conditions prescribed by the legislature have been met so as to bring the legislative intent into effect. No hearing obligation attaches to such an exercise unless the parent statute requires one.

The petitioners had invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Baldev Singh and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 510 to argue that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before the notification dated 19 April 2023 was issued. The bench found this argument unavailable on the facts: the petitioners' pleadings had not raised any ground of denial of an opportunity of hearing. Their representations before the authorities had been directed solely at the population question. Having confined their objections to that factual ground, they could not press a natural justice argument for the first time in court.

Similarly, the court found the petitioners' reliance on the judgment in Sujit and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-C No. 26793 of 2022, decided 27 September 2022) misconceived. That judgment dealt with the preliminary notification procedure under Section 4 of the Act, 1916 for declaring a transitional or urban area. The petitioners had not challenged the notification dated 21 October 2022 under Section 3 of the Act, 1916 by which Nagar Palika Parishad's limits were extended. In the absence of that challenge, the court declined to examine the legality of that earlier notification.

The bench also found the reliance on State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 305 unhelpful to the petitioners. Paragraph 44 of that judgment, which addresses judicial restraint in delimitation matters, in fact supported the respondents' case and not the petitioners'.

Rule 3-AAA of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947

The petitioners had also placed reliance on Rule 3-AAA(2) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947. The bench held this reliance misconceived. Rule 3-AAA, as the court read it, deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities of a Gram Sabha upon its inclusion within a municipality — it mandates that such assets and liabilities be transferred to the local body before inclusion. This provision does not assist a claim for retention of Gram Panchayat status. Any objection of the type the petitioners raised under Rule 3-AAA could only have been raised by Gram Panchayat Kumhraura, into which the remaining area was merged, and in any event it would not be a subject of the present writ petition.

Outcome

The Division Bench, by judgment dated 17 July 2026, dismissed Writ-C No. 7090 of 2023. The court found no infirmity or illegality in the notification dated 19 April 2023 to the extent it had been challenged. No order as to costs was made.

The petitioners had failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory conditions, any excess of the mandate under Sections 3 and 11-F, or any breach of constitutional rights. With the five-year tenure of the Gram Panchayat having already come to an end on 1 May 2026, and the notification holding good, Gram Panchayat Karua remains merged with Gram Panchayat Kumhraura.