Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, in Gudia Goswami and 293 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj and Others, has clarified that the expression “population” under Section 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the statutory definition contained in Section 2(l) of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held that the relevant population is the one recorded in the last published census and not the actual number of persons residing in the area at the time of the notification.
The dispute arose after a part of Gram Panchayat Karua in District Gonda was included within the limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Colonelganj through a notification issued in October 2022. As a consequence, the territorial area and census population of the Gram Panchayat were reduced. Subsequently, the State Government issued another notification under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, merging the remaining area of Gram Panchayat Karua into Gram Panchayat Kumhraura on the ground that the residual population, according to the 2011 Census, had fallen below the statutory benchmark of 1,000.
The Pradhan of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat and several residents challenged the notification, asserting that the actual population of the remaining area exceeded 1,700 persons and therefore the Gram Panchayat continued to satisfy the statutory requirement. The case required the Court to determine whether the expression “population” referred to the latest census figures or the existing number of residents.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that after the exclusion of a part of the village into the municipal area, the remaining Gram Panchayat still had an actual population of 1,719 persons, including more than 1,100 registered voters. They alleged that the district authorities had relied upon an incorrect report showing the population as only 785 based on the 2011 Census. According to them, several representations objecting to the proposed merger remained undecided, and even a committee constituted to verify the factual position had not completed its inquiry before the notification was issued. They contended that the merger was arbitrary, based on incorrect facts, and violated the statutory scheme.
The petitioners further relied upon Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, arguing that where only a part of a Gram Panchayat is included within a municipality, the remaining area should continue as an independent Gram Panchayat. They maintained that the reduction of territorial jurisdiction could not automatically extinguish the legal identity of the residual Gram Panchayat.
The State opposed the writ petition and submitted that the notification had been issued strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. It contended that Section 2(l) specifically defines “population” as the population recorded in the last preceding census whose figures have been officially published. On the basis of the 2011 Census, the population of the remaining area was only 785, well below the minimum benchmark contemplated under Section 11-F. Consequently, the State argued that the merger was fully justified and legally valid.
Court’s Judgment:
Dismissing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court held that the controversy was governed entirely by the statutory definition of “population” contained in Section 2(l) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Court observed that where a statute expressly defines a term, courts are bound to apply that definition and cannot substitute it with its ordinary or popular meaning.
The Bench noted that although the petitioners had asserted that the actual population of the remaining Gram Panchayat exceeded 1,000 and the State had not seriously disputed those figures, such evidence was legally irrelevant. The Act itself mandates that population must be determined solely with reference to the last published census. Since the relevant census was that of 2011 and the census population of the residual area stood at only 785, the statutory condition under Section 11-F was not fulfilled.
The Court also rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Section 8 of the Act. It held that Section 8 merely provides for the reduction of the territorial jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat when part of its area is included within a municipality. It does not guarantee that the remaining area must continue as an independent Gram Panchayat irrespective of whether it satisfies the statutory requirements under Section 11-F.
According to the Court, accepting the petitioners’ interpretation would lead to unreasonable consequences. Even a residual Gram Panchayat with an extremely small population would continue indefinitely, rendering the minimum population requirement under Section 11-F meaningless. Therefore, both provisions had to be read harmoniously so that Section 8 governs territorial reduction while Section 11-F determines whether the remaining area is eligible to exist as a separate Panchayat.
The Bench further examined the legal nature of the notification issued under Sections 3 and 11-F of the Act. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh, the Court held that the issuance of such notifications constitutes an act of conditional legislation rather than an administrative or adjudicatory exercise. Since the Government performs a legislative function while issuing these notifications, it is not required to adjudicate objections in the manner expected in administrative proceedings.
The Court explained that judicial review of conditional legislation is limited. Such notifications can be interfered with only where the statutory conditions are absent, the notification exceeds the authority conferred by law, or constitutional guarantees are violated. In the present case, none of these grounds were established.
Finding that the State Government had correctly relied upon the 2011 Census figures and had acted within the framework of the Act, the Court upheld the merger notification and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment reinforces that statutory definitions prevail over factual assertions and that the determination of population for Panchayat administration must be based exclusively on officially published census figures rather than fluctuating present-day demographics.