# Gram Panchayat & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 359
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-11
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 34710 of 2022
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gram-panchayat-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51014
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Local Body Law - Constitution of
India,1950
- Article
- 243-Q - UP
Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 3(2) &
4 - Inclusion of Gram Panchayat in the
transitional area of Nagar Panchayat -
Non-consideration
of
the
petitioner's
objection - Effect - Held, the object of S.
4 is to provide opportunity to the general
public to file objections against the
proposal. The objection could be on
various aspects, which is an invaluable
right conferred in the general public, with
avowed object of strengthening their
hands in all facets of local self-governance
- High Court quashed the impugned
notification. (Para 15 and 20)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
of restriction created by courts may be
wholly counter productive to fulfillment of
the legislative and societal needs as those
standing under the umbrella of protection
offered by the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder are in their sunset years and do
not have decades of time or abundance of
energy and resources or the motivation or
the conviction to contest legal proceedingthat too often with those who came into the
world through them.

34. In view of the above, we find
no merit in the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner. In
absence of any other submissions, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.

35. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 359
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ -C No. 34710 of 2022

Gram Panchayat & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anoop Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Local Body Law - Constitution of
India,1950
- Article
- 243-Q - UP
Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 3(2) &
4 - Inclusion of Gram Panchayat in the
transitional area of Nagar Panchayat -
Non-consideration
of
the
petitioner's
objection - Effect - Held, the object of S.
4 is to provide opportunity to the general
public to file objections against the
proposal. The objection could be on
various aspects, which is an invaluable
right conferred in the general public, with
avowed object of strengthening their
hands in all facets of local self-governance
- High Court quashed the impugned
notification. (Para 15 and 20)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Surjit & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2022 (11)
ADJ 111 (DB)
2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Pradhan Sangh Kshetra
Samiti & ors.; (1995) Supp2 SCC 305
3. Narendra Singh Rana Vs St. of Uttarakhand &
ors.; AIR 2017 Uttarakhand 3
4. Nagar Palika Parishad & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2010 (3) ADJ 703 (DB)
5. Baldev Singh & ors. Vs St. of H.P. & ors.;
(1987) 2 SCC 510
6. St. of Orissa Vs Sridhar Kumar Mallik; AIR
1985 SC 1411
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the notification no.3130/9-12022-88T.A./22 Lucknow dated 13.10.2022
issued by the State Government in exercise
of powers under clause (2) of Article 243-Q
of the Constitution of India read with subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Municipalities
Act,
19161
including the areas specified in the
Schedule appended to the notification in
the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat
Barsana in District Mathura for purpose
mentioned in Part IX-A of the Constitution.
The petitioners are aggrieved by this
notification insofar as it relates to inclusion
of Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat in the
aforesaid
transitional
area
of
Nagar
Panchayat Barsana.
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Also under challenge is an order
dated 20.9.2022 passed by the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, Mathura pursuant to
the notification dated 15.9.2022 issued by
the State Government, which is a draft
notification published for information to all
concerned and with a view to invite
objections and suggestions as required
under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the
Act, 1916 whereby it has been directed that
in respect of the works that have been
executed with regard to the village corpus
accounts pertaining to Gram Panchayat,
payments of the same would be done on
priority basis. It was further directed that
no further amount would be credited to the
corpus account of the Gram Panchayats and
if any works are executed by the Gram
Panchayat in anticipation of funds, they
would be responsible for the same.

2. The facts as appearing from the
record of the writ petition are that the
petitioner no.2 was elected as Pradhan of
Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat, Vikas
Khand-Nand
Gaon,
Tehsil-Goverdhan,
District Mathura for the term of 2021-2026
with the present term of the petitioner being
slated to be continued till 1.2.2026; that ten
work orders were issued by the Gram
Panchayat and approximately 40% of the
works have been completed; that 80% of
the population of the Gram Panchayat is
extremely poor and jobless and most of the
persons are dependent upon the facilities
provided by the State Government in
scheme
such
as
MNREGA,
Khadi
Gramodhyog etc.; that the petitioner-Gram
Panchayat, is famous for its various
religious and historical places; that a
notification no.2775/9-1-2022-88 T.A./22
Lucknow dated 15.9.2022 was issued by
the Governor in exercise of powers under
clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution read with sub-section (2) of
Section 3 of the Act, 1916 proposing to
include several areas including the areas of
Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat in the
transitional area of Nagar Panchayat
Barsana with a view to invite objections
and suggestions in respect thereof as
required under sub-section (1) of Section 4
of the Act, 1916. This notification provided
that objections or suggestions, if any, with
respect to the proposed notification should
be sent in writing addressed to the Pramukh
Sachiv,
U.P.
Shasan,
Nagar
Vikas,
Anubhag-I, Bapu Bhawan, Lucknow. It was
specified that only such objections and
suggestions
shall
be
taken
into
consideration as are received within seven
days from the date of publication of that
notification in the Gazette. Admittedly, this
notification was published in the Gazette
on 15.9.2022. The area of Barsana Dehat is
also included in the Schedule to the
notification. An objection dated 19.9.2024
was sent by the petitioner no.2, inter alia, to
the Pramukh Sachiv by recorded delivery
of India Post bearing Consignment No.EU
910597843IN. It is stated with proof that
the item was delivered on 20.9.2022 (as per
tracking report). It is stated that the
objection filed by the petitioners has not
been considered prior to issuing the
notification dated 30.10.2022 under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1916
and the area of Barsana Dehat has been
included in the transitional area of Nagar
Panchayat Barsana.

3. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is two fold.
Firstly, it is contended that as per the
mandate of Section 4 of the Act, 1916,
since the objection of the petitioners having
been demonstrated to have been received
by the addressee at its office within the
time specified in the notification aforesaid
dated 15.9.2022, the respondents were
11 All. Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
361
bound to consider the same and that having
not been done, the notification dated
13.10.2022 under sub-section (2) of Section
3 of the Act, 1916 is liable to set aside
insofar as inclusion of the area of Barsana
Dehat in the transitional area of Nagar
Panchayat Barsana is concerned. Secondly,
it is stated that 80% families in village
Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat are poor
and belong to the labourer class, who are
availing
benefit
of
the
scheme
in
MNREGA for purposes of their livelihood
and inclusion of the area of Barsana Dehat
in Nagar Panchayat Barsana would be
violative of the criteria prescribed in the
Government Order dated 10.11.2014 that
has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the
writ petition. Learned counsel for the
petitioners in support of his contentions has
relied upon a judgment of this Court in the
case of Surjit & 5 Ors. vs. State of U.P. &
2 Ors.2 and the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors.
vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti &
Ors.3.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, it has
been stated that the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1916 was issued on
15.9.2022 providing opportunity of filing
objections within seven days and the said
notification was published in two daily
newspapers
of
18.9.2022.
The
objections/suggestions that were received
within the time provided in the notification
dated 15.9.2022 were decided on 26.9.2022
by the State Government. It has further
been stated that as per record, the
petitioners' objection dated 19.9.2022 was
not received within the time provided under
the notification dated 15.9.2022 and,
therefore, there was no occasion to consider
the objection of the petitioners; that a total
of
14 objections
were
received
till
23.9.2022, which was decided by the State
Government on 26.9.2022; that the State
Government through Government Orders
dated 31.1.2015 and 23.11.2020 prescribed
the standards / criteria for inclusion of any
area in transitional area of a Nagar
Panchayat as per the Act, 1916. The copies
of the Government Orders have been
enclosed along with the counter affidavit.

5. It is pertinent to mention here
that the statement of the petitioners that
objection was filed on 19.9.2022 and the
copy of the same had been forwarded/sent
to the respondent no.1 by way of registered
post as well as by email, which was
received by the office of the respondents on
20.9.2022, has not been specifically denied.
A copy of the objections dated 19.9.2022
alongwith proof of despatch by recorded
delivery as well as the tracking report have
been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ
petition.

6. It has been urged by learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State of U.P. that a total of 14
objections were received by the State
Government which had been duly decided
by means of the orders passed on 26.9.2022
and
duly
recorded
in
an
office
memorandum of 26.9.2022 filed alongwith
the counter affidavit. The contention is that
no opportunity of hearing was required to
be given to the petitioners and, moreover,
the objections raised by the petitioners in
the letter dated 19.9.2022 are substantially
the same as raised by other 14 objectors
whose objections were duly considered and
decided on 26.9.2022. It is stated that no
useful purpose would be served in
considering the objections of the petitioners
dated 19.9.2022 separately as the same
stood addressed while disposing of the
aforestated 14 objections on 26.9.2022. In
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
support
of
his
contention,
learned
Additional Advocate General has relied
upon the judgment of the Uttarakhand High
Court in Narendra Singh Rana vs. State
of Uttarakhand & Ors.4 and a judgment
of a Division Bench of this Court in Nagar
Palika Parishad & Ors. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.5.

7. Sections 4, 3 and 5 of the Act,
1916 read as follows:-

"4.
Preliminary
procedure to issue notification. -
(1)
Before
the
issue
of
a
notification referred to in Section 3,
the Governor shall publish in the
Official Gazette and in a paper
approved by it for purposes of
publication
of
public
notices,
published in the district or, if there
is no such paper in the district, in
the division in which the local area
covered by the notification is
situate and cause to be affixed at
the office of the District Magistrate
and at one or more conspicuous
places within or adjacent to the
local area concerned a draft in
Hindi or the proposed notification
along with a notice stating that the
draft
will
be
taken
into
consideration on the expiry of the
period as may be stated in the
notice.
(2) The Governor shall,
before
issuing
the
notification
consider
any
objection
or
suggestion in writing which it
receives from any person, in
respect of the draft within the
period stated.
3. Declaration
etc.
of
transitional area and smaller
urban
area.
-(1)
Any
area
specified by the Governor in a
notification under clause (2) of
Article 243-Q of the Constitution
with such limits as are specified
therein to be a transitional area or a
smaller urban area, as the case may
be.
(2) The Governor may, by a
subsequent
notification
under
clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution, include or exclude
any area in or from a transitional
area or a smaller urban area
referred to in sub-section (1), as the
case may be.
(3)
The
notifications
referred to in sub-sections (1) and
(2) shall be subject to the condition
of the notification being issued
after
the
previous
publication
required
by
Section
4
and
notwithstanding anything in this
section, no area which is, or is part
of, a cantonment shall be declared
to be a transitional area or a smaller
urban area or be included therein
under this section.
5. Effect of including area
in transitional area or smaller
urban
area.
-
Where
by
a
notification referred to in sub-section
(2) of Section 3 the Governor
includes any area in a transitional
area or smaller urban area, such area
shall thereby become subject to all
notifications, rules, regulations, byelaws, orders, directions, issued or
made under this or any other
enactment and in force throughout
the transitional area or smaller urban
area,
at
the
time
immediately
preceding the inclusion of the area."

8. A perusal of sub-section (1) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1916 reflects that it
11 All. Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
mandates that before the issue of a
notification referred to in Section 3, the
Governor shall publish in the Official
Gazette and in a paper, approved by it for
purposes of publication of public notices,
published in the district or, if there is no
such paper in the district, in the division in
which the local area covered by the
notification is situate and cause to be
affixed at the office of the District
Magistrate and at one or more conspicuous
places within or adjacent to the local area
concerned, a draft in Hindi of the proposed
notification alongwith a notice stating that
the draft will be taken into consideration on
the expiry of the period as may be stated in
the notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 4
mandates the Governor to consider any
objection or suggestion in writing which it
receives from any person in respect of the
draft before issuing the notification under
Section 3.

Therefore,
the
draft
notification in Hindi is mandated to
be published: (i) in the Official
Gazette; (ii) in a paper approved by
the Governor for purposes of
publication
of
public
notices
published in the district; (iii) or, if
there is no such paper in the
district, in the division in which the
local
area
covered
by
the
notification is situate; (iv) cause to
be affixed at the office of the
District Magistrate; and (v) at one
or more conspicuous places within
or adjacent to the local area
concerned specifying that draft will
be taken into consideration on the
expiry of the period as may be
stated in the notice. It is evident
that the legislation mandates wide,
effective and mandatory notice so
that the persons living within the
area or areas covered by the draft
notification
have
adequate
opportunity
of
accessing
information about the proposed
transition
of
those
areas
as
contemplated under Article 243-Q
of the Constitution. Sub-section (2)
of Section 4 gives a democratic
right to every person living in the
area sought to be be covered by the
notification to submit any objection
or suggestion in writing in respect
of the draft within the period stated
therein.

9. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of
the Act, 1916 provides that the notification
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 3 shall be subject to the condition
of the notification being issued after the
previous publication required by Section 4.
As such, the essential requirement of
compliance
of
Section
4
has
been
highlighted by this provision of Section 3
of the Act, 1916.

10. Section 5 of the Act, 1916
provides the consequence of a notification
referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3
made by the Governor mandating such area
to become subject to all notifications, rules,
regulations, bye-laws, orders, directions,
issued or made under the Act, 1916 or any
enactment and in force throughout the
transitional area or the smaller urban area at
the
time
immediately
preceding
the
inclusion of the area.

11. Thus, the notification under
Section 3 visits the persons living in the
area
notified
with
several
civil
consequences that may include taxation on
properties, deprivation of benefits from
government programs and schemes for
village
areas,
etc.
Under
such
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances, which may bring about
drastic changes in the various aspects of
lives of persons, the opportunity of making
objections
and
/or
suggestions
after
publication of draft notification and due
consideration of the same by the Governor,
are vital and mandatory requirements of the
statute. It is true that there is no issue
regarding deprivation of property of the
petitioners, however, it is a matter of
consideration that collective benefits that
accrue to people living in the gram
panchayat area prior to such notification
are sought to be taken away in the name of
perceived benefits of such area being
included
in
the
Nagar
Panchayat.
Therefore, each person resident of such
area which is subject to such notification, is
a stakeholder and is conferred a right by the
Act, 1916 to make suggestions and
objections as the case may be. Such
suggestions and objections, when duly
filed,
have
to
be
accorded
due
consideration by the Governor, and the
State Government cannot brush aside an
objection by means of a general denial on
the ground that it was not received within
the time provided in the draft notification
where it has been demonstrated by the
petitioner that the objection was duly
dispatched and the delivery report of the
postal department reflects its delivery to the
addressee.

12. Now to consider the contention
on behalf of the respondents that the
objections of the petitioner are the same as
those raised by other 14 objectors which
were duly considered, a bare perusal of the
objections filed by the petitioner reflects
otherwise.

13. Annexure 6 to the writ petition
is the letter sent by the petitioners, which is
dated 19.9.2022. This letter reads as under:-
"सेवा में,
 किनांकिः 19.09.2022
श्रीमान प्रमुख सकचव
उत्तर प्रिेश शासन नगर कवकास अनुभाग
बापू भवन लखनऊ
कवषय- ग्राम पंचायत बरसाना िेहात को
नगर पंचायत बरसाना के कवस्तार के संबंध में उत्तर प्रिेश
सरकार द्वारा किनांक 15/17/9/2022 संख्या
2775/9-1-22-88 टी०ए-/22 के संबंध में
आपकत्त
महोिय,
आपको अवगत कराना है कक ग्राम पंचायत
बरसाना िेहात में 80% पररवार गरीब एंव मजिूर हैं जो
कक "MGNREGA" के तहत मजिूरी करके ही
अपना जीवन यापन करते है। यकि उसे नगर पंचायत
बरसाना में सकम्मकलत ककया तो बहुत पररवारों का
रोजगार बंि हो जाएगा और बेरोजगारी उत्पन्न हो
जाएगी। एंव माननीय मुख्यमंत्री जी द्वारा सृकजत योजनाएं
जैसे कक खािी ग्राम उद्योग, मकहला सशकक्तकरण के
कलए NRLM एंव अन्य सरकारी योजनाओं से
ग्रामीण वंकचत हो जाएंगे। नगर पंचायत बरसाना का यकि
सीमा कवस्तार होता है तो गरीब व्यकक्त पर घर कर, जल
कर एंव कबजली कर अकतररक्त वसूल ककया जाएगा।
कजससे मजिूर वगय के लोगों पर अकतररक्त बोझ बढ़
जाएगा और उनको जीवन यापन करने में ककठनाइयों का
सामना करना पडेगा। कजन ग्राम पंचायतों को सीमा
कवस्तार में बढ़ाया गया है उनमें कपछले वषय 2021 में
कत्रस्तरीय पंचायत चुनाव हुए हैं कजससे ग्राम प्रधान एंव
सिस्य कनवायकचत हुए है संकवधान के अऩुसार एक जनता
द्वारा चुने हुए प्रकतकनकध को हटाना गलत होगा। मथुरा
कजले की कजन ग्राम पंचायतों का सीमा कवस्तार हुआ है
वहां पर 2021 में कोई भी चुनाव नहीं कराया गया है
जैसे गोवधयन में जतीपुरा एंव आन्यौर एंव राधा कुंड में
राधा कुंड िेहात। ग्राम पंचायतों में कवकास कायय ग्राम
प्रधानों द्वारा शासन के आिेश अनुसार ककया जा रहा है
एंव गरीब जनता की भलाई हेतु कई कायय युद्ध स्तर पर
चल रहे हैं। उन पर बहुत प्रभाव पडेगा अथवा कजसका
सीधा असर गरीब जनता पर होगा। अतिः बरसाना नगर
पंचायत के कवस्तार में ग्राम पंचायत बरसाना िेहात के
मजिूर वगय, ग्राम प्रधान एंव ग्राम पंचायत के सिस्यगण
को आपकत्त है।
अतिः महोिय से कनवेिन है कक ग्राम पंचायत
बरसाना िेहात की जनता के कहत में जनता द्वारा चुने हुए
11 All. Gram Panchayat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
प्रधान के द्वारा कराए जा रहे कायो को उनके काययकाल
पूरा होने तक ग्राम पंचायत बरसाना िेहात को नगर
पंचायत बरसाना के कवस्तार की काययवाही रोक िी जाए
और ग्राम पंचायत बरसाना िेहात को ग्राम पंचायत ही
रहने किया जाए।
सधन्यवाि
प्राथी
बीना िेवी(ग्राम प्रधान), ग्राम पंचायत
सिस्य एंव ग्रामवासी
ग्राम पंचायत बरसाना िेहात
कवकासखंड नंिगाव/तहसील-गोरवधयन
कजला-मथुरा "

14. The aforesaid letter reflects
that apart from the objection that 80% of
the families are poor and belonged to the
labour class, who are carrying on the
livelihood by working as labour under the
MNREGA Scheme, and that many of the
families would lose their livelihood and
will become unemployed, it has also been
stated that various Schemes initiated by the
Chief
Minister
relating
to
Khadi
Gramodhyog, Women Empowerment and
other Government Schemes would not be
available; that many development schemes
are being got done by the Gram Panchayat
on a war footing for the benefit of poor
public which would be directly affecting
the poor public; that Panchayat elections at
three levels were held in the previous year
2021, in which the Gram Pradhan and
members had been elected, and, therefore,
it would be wrong to remove the elected
representatives in view of the Constitution
of India. It is pertinent to note that the
aforesaid letter has also been signed by
about 40 other persons. Annexure-3 to the
counter affidavit contains the decisions of
the Government taken on the objections
received from 14 other persons in the
concerned Gram Panchayat. Perusal of
those objections reflects that though certain
issues
are
common,
however,
other
objections that have been raised in the
objections filed by the petitioners do not
find mention in the objections considered
and disposed of by the Government. The
objections appearing in Annexure CA-3 to
the counter affidavit are collated and are as
follows:-

"(i) चररत्र प्रमाण पत्र, जाकत प्रमाण पत्र,
कनवास प्रमाण पत्र, आय प्रमाण पत्र, कवधवा पेंषन,
वृद्धावस्था पेंषन, मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र आकि
बनवाने में समस्या
(ii) मनरेगा योजना के अन्तगयत 300 से
अकधक श्रकमक बेरोजगार हो जायेंगे
(iii) अिसकखयों के गाुँव का अकस्तत्व
समाप्त हो जायेगा
(iv) नगर पाकलका में गॉव सकम्मकलत होने
के कारण कबजली यूकनट का रेट बढ जायेगा एवं गृहकर,
जलकर टैक्स भी लागू हो जायेंगे
(v) नगर पाकलका बनने से तहसील का
पररवतयन हो जायेगा"

15. In the case of Sujit Kumar
(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioners, this Court observed that the
object
of
Section
4
is
to
provide
opportunity to the general public to file
objections
against
the
proposal. The
objection could be on various aspects,
which is an invaluable right conferred in
the general public, with avowed object of
strengthening their hands in all facets of
local self governance.

16. The judgments relied upon on
behalf of the respondents are of no
assistance to the respondents.

In the judgment in the case of
Narendra Singh Rana (supra), other
connected writ petitions were also decided.
The case of the petitioner in one petition
was that there was no warrant for notifying
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Panchayat in question as a Nagar
Panchayat. Primarily, reliance was placed
on a Government Order of 1986 that
specified various conditions for declaring a
Nagar Panchayat. In another connected writ
petition, the case of the Government was
that no objections were received within
time and, therefore, the contention was that
without considering any of the objections,
the area had been notified as Nagar
Panchayat.
The
Court
observed
in
paragraph 14 thereof that for constituting
an area into a Nagar Panchayat, the
Government is obliged to follow the
procedure laid down in Section 4 of the
Municipalities Act. Objections are to be
invited and the objections which are
received within the time are to be
considered. On the contention raised by one
of the counsel for the petitioner therein that
the petitioner was not given an opportunity
of being heard, the Court observed that if
the objections which are filed in time are
considered and the decision is taken, then it
may not be open to challenge on the ground
that the person was not given a personal
hearing. The Court observed as follows:-

"24. Principles of natural
justice are the contribution of the
courts towards the cause of justice.
Principles of natural justice are
observed in various contexts and in
various ways. In some situations, the
right to represent against a proposed
action would suffice. In other cases,
it may be necessary to give a right of
personal hearing. Even a right of
personal hearing may be afforded to
a person unaided by service of a legal
practitioner in some situations; but,
there may be situations, which may
demand that a person be assisted by a
qualified practitioner of law which
alone would satisfy the requirements
of justice. Therefore, it would all
depend on the context, the object, the
implications
involved
in
the
practicality of complying with the
various aspects of natural justice and
far more importantly, the actual
provisions of the governing statute."

17. In the aforesaid case of
Narendra Singh Rana, the petitioner therein
placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh
& Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors.6, wherein the Supreme Court had
considered the case of State of Orissa vs.
Sridhar Kumar Mallik7 and it was noted
that the Orissa Act provides in clear terms a
right of hearing, whereas Section 256 of the
Himachal Pradesh makes no such provision
but the settled position in law is that where
exercise of a power results in civil
consequences to the citizens unless the statute
specifically rules out the application of
natural justice, the rules of natural justice
would
apply.
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances, the Court in Narendra Singh
Rana observed that it would not be proper to
invalidate the notification under the Act in
question on the ground that the petitioner was
not given an opportunity of hearing. It is
pertinent to mention here that in that case the
objections of the petitioner were considered.
However, the Court was of the opinion that
matters being raised in the petition that seek a
merit review cannot be a valid ground to
maintain the writ petition. There was,
however, one aspect in the case of Narendra
Singh Rana that troubled the Court which
appears in paragraph 40 of the judgment and
reads as follows.

"40. There is one aspect,
which we must, however, indicate,
which troubles us. In these cases,
we notice that seven days' time
11 All. Smt. Sushma Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
alone was granted for the filing of
the objections and suggestions
when publication was made under
Section 4. It is not as if the matter
is so urgent that such a short notice
is
to
be given. Though
the
petitioners have not raised any
complaint as such against the short
period, and we need not actually
pronounce on this; but, we certainly
think that in future, Government
must apply its mind to it and give
reasonable
time
to
persons
concerned to raise objections for
proposal and also apply its mind to
the matter."

18. In the cited case of Nagar
Palika Parishad, one of the challenges
made to the notification was that the
extension of the area of Nagar Palika
Parishad was hurriedly taken without
issuing
and
publishing
the
primary
notification as provided under Section 4(1)
of the Act, 1916. The Court found the
challenge on this aspect to be baseless
inasmuch as a draft notification under
Section 4 of the Act, 1916 was published in
the official Gazette and objections were
invited.
Certain
objections/suggestions
were
received
which
included
a
representation of the petitioner. All the
representations were considered and it was
found by the Court that the other
representations that were duly decided in
detail with reasons, were on the same line
as that of the petitioner's representation
and, therefore, the contention that the
objections of the petitioner were not
decided with reasons, was found to have no
force.

19. However, in the instant case,
the facts are different. The objections of the
petitioners were never considered. Under
the circumstances, the notification and the
order impugned in the writ petition cannot
be sustained so far as they relate to Village
Barsana Dehat.

20.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed and the impugned
notification dated 13.10.2022, insofar as it
relates to Village-Barsana Dehat, Vikas
Khand-Nand
Gaon,
Tehsil-Goverdhan,
District Mathura, is quashed and the order
dated 20.9.2022 passed by the respondent
no.5, insofar as it relates to Village-Barsana
Dehat is quashed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 367
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ -C No. 1000081 of 1994

Smt. Sushma Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Revenue Law - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reform Act, 1950 - Section 198(4)
- Cancellation of patta - Land is a pond -
Lessee is not the landless agricultural
labour and her husband is in government
job of Sub Divisional Officer in Tube Well
Department - Effect - Held, allotment of
lease is to be granted in favour of persons,
who comes under the category defined
under the Act. The petitioner does not
come under the ambit nor is a landless
agriculturist - No illegality has been
committed
in
passing
the
impugned
orders. (Para 13)