# Neha Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20091 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neha-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48976
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra
Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam,
1961-Section
11-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007Section 9- Section 11(2) of the U.P.
Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961-Section 11 stipulates
that a member shall be deemed to have
vacated his office from the date on which
notice of his resignation is received in the
office of Kshetra Panchayat-The vacancy
becomes effective from a date envisaged
under the deeming provision engrafted in
the statute-It thus becomes operative by
operation of law from the date notice is
received in the office of the Kshetra
Panchayat-Unlike in case of Pramukh, the
resignation to become effective, in case of
a member, does not require any approval-
the notices of resignation were received in
the
office
of
Kshetra
Panchayat-
Therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned notification.(Para 1 to 13)
The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

1724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
NOIDA. In any case, the same cannot be
taken to be a reasonable explanation for
condoning huge delay in filing the present
writ petition. In this case, the direction was
issued by this Court about a decade back.
The petitioner should have been vigilant
and enquired about the status of the
application filed by him before the
competent authority. There is nothing on
record to suggest that he ever made any
representation or enquired about the order
passed on his representation. In any case,
the release of land under Section 48 of the
Act is not a matter of right with the
landowner. It is a power conferred on the
Government.

14. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any merit in the present writ
petition.
The
same
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1724
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 20091 of 2022

Neha Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kartikeya Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra
Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam,
1961-Section
11-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007Section 9- Section 11(2) of the U.P.
Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961-Section 11 stipulates
that a member shall be deemed to have
vacated his office from the date on which
notice of his resignation is received in the
office of Kshetra Panchayat-The vacancy
becomes effective from a date envisaged
under the deeming provision engrafted in
the statute-It thus becomes operative by
operation of law from the date notice is
received in the office of the Kshetra
Panchayat-Unlike in case of Pramukh, the
resignation to become effective, in case of
a member, does not require any approval-
the notices of resignation were received in
the
office
of
Kshetra
Panchayat-
Therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned notification.(Para 1 to 13)
The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The petitioner is Pramukh of Kshetra
Panchayat, Gulavathi, Bulandshahr. She has
preferred the instant petition calling in
question a notification issued from the office
of respondent no.2, Assistant Development
Officer showing two vacancies of members
on account of respondents no. 4 and 5 having
tendered their resignations. The date of
vacancy as per the said chart is 5.04.2022 in
case of respondent no. 5 and 26.04.2022 in
case of respondent no. 4.

2. It is not disputed before us that the
resignation letter of the members namely
respondents no.4 and 5 have been received in
the office of Kshetra Panchayat on respective
dates from which the vacancies have been
made effective.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted
that
mere
submission
of
9 All. Neha Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1725
resignation by respondents no.4 and 5 will
not
result
in
vacancy
unless
the
resignations are approved in the meeting of
the Kshetra Panchayat. He submitted that
D.P.R.O. had sent communications to the
Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat
on 5.5.2022 and 7.4.2022 for requisitioning
a meeting of Zila Panchayat members for
the
purposes
of
accepting
their
resignations. It is submitted that since the
resignations have yet not been accepted,
therefore, the notification of the vacancy is
illegal.

4. In order to consider as to when the
resignation of an elected member of a
Kshettra Panchayat would be effective, the
provision contained under Section 11 of the
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila
Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 [U.P. Act No.
33 of 1961], would be required to be
adverted to.

5. Section 11 of the Act, 1961 as it
originally stood, reads as follows:

"11. Resignation of Pramukh,
Up-Pramukh or member. - (1) A Pramukh,
Up-Pramukh or any member mentioned in
clause (iii) of section (1) of section 6, or in
sub-section (2) of that section may resign
his office by giving notice of writing to the
Kshettra Samiti.

(2)
The
resignation
of
the
Pramukh shall take effect on the from the
date on which the sanction thereto of the
Adhyaksh is received in the office of the
Kshettra Samiti and the resignation of the
Up-Pramukh or member shall take effect
on and from the date on which the notice is
received in the office of the Kshettra
Samiti."

6. Consequent to the Constitution
(73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, the State
Legislature considered it expedient to
amend the United Provinces Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 and the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra
Samitis and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam,
1961 in keeping with the objectives and the
guidelines incorporated in the Constitution
amendment. The amendments were brought
forth by the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1994 [U.P. Act No. 9 of
1994].

7. Section 66 of the amending Act of
1994, relates to amendment of Section 11
of the U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961 and the
same was in the following terms:

"66. Amendment of Section 11 -
In Section 11 of the principal Act, -

(a) for sub-section (1), the
following sub-section shall be substituted,
namely, -

"(1) A Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or
any elected member of the Kshettra
Panchayat may resign his office by writing
under his hand addressed, in the case of the
Pramukh, to the Adhyaksha of the Zila
Panchayat concerned, and in other cases to
the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat;";

(b) in sub-section (2), after the
words "notice is received in the office of the
Kshettra Samiti", the words "and such
Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or the member
shall be deemed to have vacated his office"
shall be inserted."

8. Section 11 of the Act of 1961, as it
stood consequent to the amending Act of
1994, was as follows:
1726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"11. Resignation of Pramukh,
Up-Pramukh or member. - (1) A Pramukh,
Up-Pramukh or any elected member of the
Kshettra Panchayat may resign his office
by writing under his hand addressed, in the
case of Pramukh, to the Adhyaksha of the
Zila Panchayat concerned, and in other
cases to the Pramukh of the Kshettra
Panchayat.

(2)
The
resignation
of
the
Pramukh shall take effect on the from the
date on which the sanction thereto of the
Adhyaksh is received in the office of the
Kshettra Samiti and the resignation of the
Up-Pramukh or member shall take effect
on and from the date on which the notice is
received in the office of the Kshettra Samiti
and such Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or the
member shall be deemed to have vacated
his office."

9. The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2007 [U.P. Act No. 44
of 2007] inter alia, brought about a general
amendment in U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961 by
providing for omission of the word "UpPramukh" wherever occurring in the Act,
including the marginal headings and the
Schedules. Section 9 of the Amending Act
of
2007
which
brought
about
the
aforestated general amendment, reads as
follows:-

"9. General Amendment of
U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961. - In the Uttar
Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila
Panchayats
Adhiniyam,
1961,
hereinafter in this chapter referred to as
the principal Act, the words "UpPramukh",
"Senior
Up-Pramukh",
"Junior
Up-Pramukh"
and
"Upadhyaksha"
wherever
occurring
including
marginal
headings
and
Schedules, shall be omitted."

10. Section 11 of the U.P. Act No. 33
of 1961, after the amendments brought into
effect in terms of the amending Act of
2007, presently stands as under:-

"11. Resignation of Pramukh or
member. - (1) A Pramukh, or any elected
member of the Kshettra Panchayat may
resign his office by writing under his hand
addressed, in the case of Pramukh, to the
Adhyaksha
of
the
Zila
Panchayat
concerned, and in other cases to the
Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat.

(2)
The
resignation
of
the
Pramukh shall take effect on the from the
date on which the sanction thereto of the
Adhyaksh is received in the office of the
Kshettra Samiti and the resignation of
member shall take effect on and from the
date on which the notice is received in the
office of the Kshettra Samiti and such
Pramukh or the member shall be deemed to
have vacated his office."

11. Thus, Section 11(2) of the U.P.
Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961 stipulates that a member
shall be deemed to have vacated his office
from the date on which notice of his
resignation is received in the office of
Kshetra Panchayat. The vacancy becomes
effective from a date envisaged under the
deeming provision engrafted in the statute.
It thus becomes operative by operation of
law from the date notice is received in the
office of the Kshetra Panchayat. Unlike in
case of Pramukh, the resignation to become
effective, in case of a member, does not
require any approval.

12. Indisputably, the notices of
resignation were received in the office of
Kshetra Panchayat on 5.04.2022 and
26.4.2022,
respectively.
Consequently,
9 All. Maulana Mohd. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1727
there is no illegality in the impugned
notification.

13. The petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1727
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Writ C No. 24086 of 2019

Maulana Mohd. Riyasat Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mahabir Yadav, Sri Ram Awtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Kazis Act,1880-Sections 2,4Appointment of Kazi-Claim of petitioner
for appointment as City Kazi has been
rejected-Even there was not considerable
number of persons belonging to Muslim
Community of locality expressing their
support for appointment of the petitioner
as "Kazi"-Appointment of a person as Kazi
does no confer any exclusive right upon
that person-It is a mere title, conferment
of which rests in the discretion of StateHence, no interference requires.(Para 1 to
12)

B. A close examination of the provisions of
section 2 of the Act would indicate that for
appointment of a person as Kazi there are
two stages. The first stage is that it must
appear to the State Government that a
considerable
number
of
the
Mohammedans residing in any local area
desire that one or more Kazis should be
appointed for such local area. Once, the
first stage is crossed, the State gets
discretion to appoint, if it thinks fit, one or
more fit persons, after consultation with
the principal Mohammedan residents of
such local area. Section 4 of the Act by
declaring that no appointment made
under the Act could prevent a person from
discharging any of the functions of a Kazi
clarifies that appointment of a Kazi does
not
confer
any
exclusive
status
or
powers.(Para 9)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Katil Sheikh Ummar Saheb Vs Khazi Budan Khan
Saheb (1915) AIR Madras 28

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

1. This matter has been heard through
video conferencing.

2. We have heard Sri Mahabir Yadav
for the petitioner; the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents 1 to 7; and
have perused the record.

3. The petitioner seeks quashing of
the order dated 20.6.2019 passed by
Principal Secretary (Nyay Anubhag-3)
(Appointments), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow
rejecting the representation of the petitioner
for appointment as a "Kazi" under Section
2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short the Act).

4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise
to this petition are as under: One Janab
Sayed Sabir was earlier appointed as Kazi
in Agra City. He died in the year 2013.
After his death no City Kazi has been
appointed by the State. The petitioner, by
claiming that he had been performing duty
as a Naib City Kazi, applied to the State