[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Gram Panchayat, Yerkheda, Kamptee, … vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. … on 14 August, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7993-DB
1 WP 7126.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7126 OF 2024
1] Gram Panchayat, Yerkheda,
Tah. Kamptee, District-Nagpur,
through its Sarpanch Smt. Saritabai
Madhukar Rangari, Aged about 50
years, R/o. Yerkheda, Tah. Kamptee,
District-Nagpur.
2] Anil s/o Balaji Patil,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation-Member, Gram
Panchayat, Yerkheda, R/o. Yerkheda,
Tah. Kamptee, District-Nagpur.
3] Smt. Rashida Begum Sayyed Asif,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation-Member, Gram Panchayat,
Yerkheda, R/o. Yerkheda, Tah. Kamptee,
District-Nagpur.
4] Smt. Roshani Sachin Bhasme,
Aged about 35 years,
Occuption-Member, Gram Panchayat,
Yerkheda, R/o. Yerkheda, Tah. Kamptee,
District-Nagpur. .. Petitioners
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra,
trough its Secretary, Rural
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 WP 7126.24
2] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Municipal
Councils, Municipal Corporations
and Nagar Panchayat Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3] The Collector, Nagpur having its
Office at Collectorate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4] Zilla Parishad, Nagpur through its
Chief Executive Officer,
District-Nagpur.
5] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Kamptee,
Tahsil-Kamptee, District-Nagpur. .. Respondents
..........
Shri R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.D. Dangore,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate/Government Pleader assisted
by Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Shri Shivansh Dalvi, Advocate h/f Shri S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
..........
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26th JUNE, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th AUGUST, 2025.
JUDGMENT [Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for
3 WP 7126.24
final disposal.
2. By this petition, initially the petitioners seek declaration
that there is no need of conversion of Gram Panchayat Yerkheda
into Nagar Panchayat. However, during the pendency of the
petition, in view of subsequent development, the present
petitioners challenged the Government Resolution, dated
04.10.2024 and further seek direction to quash and set aside
the final Notification dated 11.02.2025 and consequent order of
appointment of Administrator dated 11.02.2025 issued by
respondent no.1-Rural Development Department, State of
Maharashtra.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under :
The petitioners are the Gram Panchayat Members who
hold the post in view of Gram Panchayat Election held in the
month of November, 2022. The present petitioner no.1 stated
that after the period of 25 years, the scheduled caste candidate
was given chance to head the Gram Panchayat and accordingly
she is the first lady belonging to scheduled caste category who
was elected for the post of Sarpanch. It is further stated that
4 WP 7126.24
the first meeting of Gram Panchayat was held on 06.01.2023
and accordingly the period of Gram Panchayat commenced for a
period of 5 years from 06.01.2023.
4. After taking the charge by petitioner no.1 as a Sarpanch
of Gram Panchayat Yerkheda on 11.07.2024, the Gram
Panchayat received the communication from respondent no.5
i.e. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kamptee on
the subject of conversion of Gram Panchayat Yerkheda into
Nagar Panchayat and thereby directed to submit a proposal to
his office in that regard.
5. The said communication issued by respondent no.5 was
in turn of communication dated 11.07.2024 from the office of
Collector as well as from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur dated 09.07.2024. Hence, it is the submission
of the petitioners that respondent no.3 and 4 are behind the
issuance of communication dated 11.07.2024.
6. The petitioners stated that as they were newly elected
Gram Panchayat members and their term was yet not
completed, after receipt of communication from respondent
5 WP 7126.24
no.5, immediately meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called
on 29.07.2024 and in that meeting, it was unanimously
resolved not to convert the Gram Panchayat Yerkheda into
Nagar Panchayat. The petitioners further relied upon the
resolution of Gram Sabha dated 26.01.2024, wherein it was
resolved that till the completion of tenure of newly elected
Gram Panchayat members, the Gram Panchayat Yerkheda
should not be converted into Nagar Panchayat. On the basis of
this resolution, the communication was made with the
respondent no.5-Block Development Officer and informed him
about the decision of the Gram Panchayat that they are not
consenting for conversion of Gram Panchayat into Nagar
Panchayat.
7. It is further stated by the petitioners that after making
representations to the respondent no.5, there was no response
from the respondents and, therefore, petitioners along with the
villagers approached to the Collector by tendering their
representation dated 09.09.2024 and thereby informed the
Collector that in the General Meeting of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
held on 03.08.2024, Zilla Parishad has also taken a decision not
6 WP 7126.24
to convert the village Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat till
the completion of 2½ years period of the Gram Panchayat
members.
8. It is further submitted by the petitioners that though
there was objection from all the villagers as well as Gram
Panchayat members, Tahsildar, Kamptee on 02.09.2024
forwarded the draft proposal to the respondent no.5-Block
Development Officer and on the same day, Block Development
Officer forwarded the draft proposal prepared by his office to
the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. Along with
the proposal, the objections raised by the petitioners and the
resolutions were also enclosed.
9. The specific objection raised by the petitioners is that
on 02.09.2024, the Collector, while addressing a letter to the
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, had specifically
referred the communication of one Shri Gajanan Laxman
Tirpude, President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Yerkheda.
On whose application, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Maharashtra
State, has directed to prepare and forward the proposal of
conversion of Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat. As such,
7 WP 7126.24
according to the petitioners, only because of political
interference, this entire process has been initiated, hence
actually there is no demand to convert the Gram Panchayat into
Nagar Panchayat.
10. As such, on the basis of above submission, petitioners
approached to this Court by filing the petition on 01.10.2024
and thereby sought declaration that conversion of Gram
Panchayat Yerkheda into Nagar Panchayat should not be
permitted. This Court on 10.12.2024 issued notices in the
matter to the respondents by considering the grievances raised
by the petitioners in the matter.
11. During the pendency of the petition, Respondent no.1-
State Government had issued the proclamation and draft
notification dated 04.10.2024 by invoking the powers under
Section 341-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar
Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short ‘Act
of 1965) to specify the local area of village panchayat Yerkheda
in Nagpur District being an area in transition from a rural area
to an urban area and to constitute a Nagar Panchayat by name
of ‘Yerkheda Nagar Panchayat” in the said transitional area. On
8 WP 7126.24
the basis of said draft notification, the objections were called
from the members of village Yerkheda. In pursuance of the
draft notification, the villagers as well as petitioners tendered
their objections before the Collector. The petitioners as well as
the villagers quoted reasons as to why the conversion of Gram
Panchayat into Nagar Parishad should not be done in the
matter.
12. After the objections raised by the petitioners,
Respondent no.1 by its Government Resolution dated
11.02.2025, has taken the decision by issuing notification and
accordingly specified the local area of village Yerkheda to be
transitional area and for which there shall be constituted a
Nagar Panchayat, as provided under Section 341-A (2) of the
Act of 1965 by name of ‘Yerkheda Nagar Panchayat’. In
Scheduled ‘A’ and ‘B’, description of the transitional area and
boundaries of the transitional area were also recorded in the
notification itself. In consequence to the notification issued by
respondent no.1, State Government appointed Naib Tahsildar,
Kamptee as an Administrator of the Nagar Panchayat, till the
constitution of the Nagar Panchayat as per the provisions of
9 WP 7126.24
law.
13. In view of further development, the petition has been
amended and by amended prayer, the petitioners seek to quash
and set aside Government Resolution dated 04.10.2024 and the
final order and notification dated 11.02.2025 as well as the
appointment of Administrator dated 11.02.2025.
14. In response to the notice issued by this Court to the
respondents, Respondent no.2-Collector filed his affidavit dated
05.02.2025 and clarified that as per the Government Resolution
dated 30.09.2024, it is permissible for conversion of Gram
Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat after a period of one year of
Gram Panchayat Elections. According to him, the first meeting
being held on 06.01.2023. The period of one year had expired
on 06.01.2024 and, therefore, the process initiated for
conversion of Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat by
invoking the powers under Section 341-A of the Act of 1965 is
justified as per the provisions of law. It is further submitted by
respondent no.2 that after issuing preliminary proclamation by
State Government dated 04.10.2024, he has called the
objections to the notification and hearing was conducted on
10 WP 7126.24
13.12.2024. He has enclosed the minutes of the proceedings
dated 13.12.2024 to demonstrate the fact that all the objections
raised before him was noted and forwarded to State
Government in respect of preliminary proclamation issued by
the State Government. He further stated that under the
provisions of law, the Collector is not empowered to take
decision on the grievance raised by the villagers and, therefore,
on 03.12.2024 he has referred the minutes of proceedings with
objections to Desk Officer, Urban Development Department. As
such, considering the minutes of proceedings, the State
Government had issued a notification dated 11.02.2025 and,
therefore, there is no illegality of any nature in the present
matter.
15. Respondent no.2 i.e. the State Government filed their
affidavit dated 12.02.2025 stating that Article 243Q of the
Constitution of India, empowers the constitution of a Nagar
Panchayat for a transitional area. Hence, as per the parameters
laid down in Article 243Q, the process of conversion of the
Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat was initiated in the
matter. He further stated that under Section 341-A of the Act of
11 WP 7126.24
1965 laid down criteria regarding transitional area for
incorporation of a Nagar Panchayat, the same has been
followed in the matter. It has been stated that for considering
the population criteria of the village, decennial population
census held in 2011 was considered, according to which, the
population of Yerkheda Gram Panchayat was 15,727.
16. In respect of percentage of employment in non-
agricultural activities, it is stated that non-agricultural
employment percentage of village Yerkheda was found to be
around 75% and same was certified by the Tahsildar, Kamptee,
District-Nagpur by its Certificate dated 04.09.2024. In respect
of term of Gram Panchayat, it is stated that as per the
Government Resolution dated 30.09.2024, after lapse of one
year period, the conversion of Gram Panchayat into Nagar
Panchayat is permissible and, therefore, after completion of one
year term of the Gram Panchayat, they have initiated the
procedure.
17. It is further clarified that after issuance of preliminary
proclamation, his office received the minutes of proceedings
from the office of Collector. There were total 48 objections.
12 WP 7126.24
However, Respondent no.2 found that none of the objections
demonstrate as to how the conversion of Gram Panchayat into
Nagar Panchayat will cause prejudice. Hence, the State
Government proceeded further in the matter and keeping in
mind for better development of the village Yerkheda Nagar
Panchayat is required to be constituted. It is further stated that
the constitution of Yerkheda Nagar Panchayat will promote
economic development and help commercial as well as
industrial development in the area. It will improve education,
health and social facilities and infrastructure like water,
electricity, roads and sanitation. Hence, taking into
consideration the entire factual position, final notification
issued on 11.02.2025 is justified in the matter.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in support
of his submissions, has relied upon the following case laws :
(1) State of Maharashtra and another .vs. Jalgaon
Municipal Council and others, reported in
2003 (5) Bom. C.R.709 (S.C.).
(2) Deep Narayan Chavan and others .vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004
(Supp.) Bom. C.R. 662.
13 WP 7126.24
(3) Abhishek Shankarrao Thakare and others .vs.
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Yavatmal and others, reported in
AIR Online 2014 Bom.3.
(4) State of Madhya Pradesh and others .vs.
Sanjay Nagayach and others, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 25.
(5) State of U.P. and others .vs. Pradhan Sangh
Kshettra Samiti and others, reported in 1995
Supp. (2) SCC 305.
(6) Baldev Singh and others .vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in
(1987) 2 SCC 510.
(7) Sunil Kailashchandra Rawat and others .vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 865.
(8) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and
another .vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico
India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) reported in AIR 2021
SC 2692.
(9) Dr. Subramanian Swamy .vs. Dr. Manmohan
Singh and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC
1185.
(10)Village Panchayat, Dharna Wadhona, Buzruk
and others .vs. Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur and others, reported in AIR
1967 Bombay 447.
14 WP 7126.24
(11)Union of India and others .vs. V.R.
Nanukuttan Nair, reported in (2019) 19 SCC
690.
(12)Nasiruddin and others .vs. Sita Ram Agarwal,
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 577.
19. The learned Senior Advocate/Government Pleader
appearing for the Respondents/State, in support of his
submission, has relied upon the following case laws :
(1) Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and others .vs.
Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others,
reported in (1989) 3 SCC 396.
(2) Chhaya Vyankatrao Hajare and others .vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 339.
(3) Ramdas s/o Marotrao Kathle and others .vs.
The State of Maharashtra and one, reported
in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom. 8989 in Writ
Petition No.1501/2016.
(4) Mr. Prakash s/o Gulabrao Domki .vs. State of
Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition
No.6672/2016, decided on 12.01.2017.
(5) Jaydeep Vilas Taware .vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2022 (3)
Mh.L.J. 719.
15 WP 7126.24
20. We have heard the respective counsels in the matter,
perused the entire record and also considered the case laws
which they have relied upon in the matter.
21. It is pertinent to note that respondent no.2 along with
his affidavit-in-reply dated 12.02.2025 enclosed the copy of
communication from the Gram Panchayat Yerkheda to the Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kamptee dated
16.09.2022. Admittedly, this communication is from erstwhile
Sarpanch and Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat,
Yerkheda, whereby they requested to convert the Gram
Panchayat Yerkheda into Nagar Panchayat by giving the details
such as population, non-agriculture employment percentage etc.
of the village. This document placed on record by respondent
no.2 is not denied by the petitioners. Admittedly, this
communication was by erstwhile Sarpanch of village Yerkheda.
Thus, it is clear that before election of the Gram Panchayat held
in December, 2022, the request was already made to convert
Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat.
22. In the present petition, it is also clear from the record
that the petitioners approached to this Court are the elected
16 WP 7126.24
members of the Village Panchayat held in the month of
December, 2022 and their prime submission is that till the
completion of their term, the Village Panchayat should not be
converted into Nagar Panchayat. In other way, it can be stated
that there is no objection for the conversion subject to condition
that same should be done after the completion of their term
and, therefore, they are before this Court to challenge the
Notification. However, according to us, it is now well settled
principles of law that right to hold an electoral office is neither
a fundamental nor common right and same is purely a statutory
right. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a violation of any
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ground on which the
petitioners are challenging the conversion is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
23. This Court, while dealing with identical issue, in the
case of Chhaya Hajare .vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra) in Para 12 observed as under :
12. There is substance in the submission that the
petitioners have mainly challenged the final
notification in the capacity as Members of the Village
Panchayat. The petitioners who are residents of the
17 WP 7126.24area did not file any objection in the year 2002 to the
initial proclamation. We do not find any substance in
the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that till the Panchayat term expires in
the year 2013, there could not be any conversion of
the Village Panchayat into Nagar panchayat. We do
not find any mandate of law supporting the
contention of the counsel for the petitioners in this
regard.
24. The further submission of the petitioners that after
tendering the objections before the Collector by the petitioners
as well as villagers, they were not communicated any reasons
before issuing the final notification in the matter. In this
regard, it is stated that Section 341-A (3) of the Act of 1965,
it is not expected from the State Government to record the
reasons as to why it finds the objections are insufficient or
invalid. The powers to be exercised by the State Government
are undisputedly quasi-legislative in nature. In this regard,
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija
(supra), observed in Para 27 and 28 as under :
27. Reverting to the case, we find that the
conclusion of the High Court as to the need to
reconsider the proposal to form the Corporation has
neither the attraction of logic nor the support of law.
It must be noted that the function of the Government
in establishing a Corporation under the Act is neither
executive nor administrative. Counsel for the
appellants was right in his submission that it is
legislative process indeed. No judicial duty is laid on
18 WP 7126.24
the Government in discharge of the statutory duties.
The only question to be examined is whether the
statutory provisions have been complied with. If they
are complied with, then, the Court could say no
more. In the present case the government did publish
the proposal by a draft notification and also
considered the representations received. It was only
thereafter, a decision was taken to exclude
Ulhasnagar for the time being. That decision became
final when it was notified under Section 3(2). The
Court cannot sit in judgment over such decision. It
cannot lay down norms for the exercise of that
power. It cannot substitute even “its juster will for
theirs.”
28. Equally, the rule issued by the High Court to
hear the parties is untenable. The government in the
exercise of its powers under Section 3 is not subject
to the rules of natural justice any more than is
legislature itself. The rules of natural justice are not
applicable to legislative action plenary or
subordinate. The procedural requirement of hearing
is not implied in the exercise of legislative powers
unless hearing was expressly prescribed. The High
Court, therefore, was in error in directing the
government to hear the parties who are not entitled
to be heard under law.
Hence, considering the quasi-legislative powers available with
the respondent no.2, there is no necessity to give the reasons in
the matter.
Further this Court in Writ Petition No.6672/2016 (Mr.
Prakash s/o Gulabrao Domki .vs. State of Maharashtra and
others) decided on 12.01.2017 (supra), observed in para 20 as
under :
19 WP 7126.24
20. In so far as the contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of sub-
section (5) of Section 3 is concerned, the powers to
be exercised by the State Government are
undisputedly quasi-legislative in nature. The State
Government is not expected to give reasons as to
why it finds the objections to be insufficient or
invalid. The parameters on which the exercise of
quasi-legislative powers by an authority can be
examined by this Court have been very well laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu & another .vs. P. Krishnamurthy &
others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 517. Their
Lordships have observed as under :
“15. There is a presumption in favour of
constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate
Legislation and the burden is upon him who
attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well
recognized that a sub-ordinate legislation can be
challenged under any of the following grounds :
a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-
ordinate legislation.
b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India.
c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of
India.
d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it
is made or exceeding the limits of authority
conferred by the enabling Act.
e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any
enactment.
f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an
extent where court might well say that Legislature
never intended to give authority to make such
Rules).
20 WP 7126.24
Hence, we find no perversity on the part of Respondent No.1
while issuing final Notification in the matter.
25. In the present petition, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners has heavily relied upon Section 4 of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, ‘Act of 1959’) to
contend that consultation with the Gram Panchayat before
constituting Nagar Panchayat is must. However, there is no
such consultation nor obtain consent of Gram Panchayat.
Hence, entire action of the Respondents is vitiated. Hence, to
consider and understand the submission of petitioners, Section
4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 reproduced
as under :
Section 4 : Declaration of village :
(1) [Every village specified in the notification issued
under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution of
India shall be known by the name of that village
specified in that notification:]Provided that, where a group of revenue villages or
hamlets or other such administrative unit or part
thereof is [specified in that notification] to be a
village, the village shall be known by the name of the
revenue village, hamlet or as the case may be,
administrative unit or part thereof, having the largest
population.
21 WP 7126.24
(2) [Where the circumstances so require to include
or exclude any local area from the local area of a
village or to alter the limits of a village or that a local
area shall cease to be a village, then the notification
issued in the like manner after consultation with the
Standing Committee and [the Gram Sabha and] the
panchayat concerned, at any time, may provide to-]
(a) include within, or exclude from any village, any
local area or otherwise after the limits of any village,
or
(b) declare that any local area shall cease to be a
village;
and thereupon the local area shall be so included or
excluded, or the limits of the village so altered, or, as
the case may be, the local area shall cease to be a
village.
26. According to the petitioners, in view of Section 4 of the
Act of 1959, before declaring the area under the Yerkheda
Gram Panchayat as a transitional area, the consultation with the
Gram Panchayat was necessary as it has impact on the status of
members constituting the Panchayat. However, there is no
consultation with the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, entire
process undertaken by the respondents is vitiated in the matter.
In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for
petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Village
Panchayat, Dharna Wadhona, Buzruk and others .vs.
22 WP 7126.24
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others (supra),
Deep Narayan Chavhan (supra) and State of Maharashtra and
another .vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others (supra). The
petitioners have relied upon para 38 in the case of Jalgaon
Municipal Council, which reads as under :
Q.4. Want of consultation with Municipal Council –
effect?
38. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted
that steps for constitution of Municipal Corporations
fell within the purview of Section 3 of B.P.M.C. Act
which requires the specification of larger urban area,
and constitution of Municipal Corporations therein, to
be preceded by a notification subject to the condition
of previous publication. Consultation is not one of the
requirements of Section 3 and therefore the High
Court went wrong in holding that for want of
consultation, the process of constitution of Municipal
Corporations of the city of Jalgaon was vitiated. With
this submission we do not agree. The Jalgaon
Municipal Council was already in existence, Jalgaon
being smaller urban area. It was proposed to be
converted into a larger urban area. This process
would involve abolition of ‘municipal area’ as defined
in within the Clause (24) of Section 2 of M.R.
Municipal Council Act. Any of the events provided by
Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 6 must satisfy the requirement of
consulting the Municipal Council provided for by
provisio to sub-Section (1) before issuing the
notification and before that, notification should also
follow the procedure prescribed by Section 3 mutatis
mutandis. Section 6(1)(d) covers within its scope any
event, the declaration whereof has the effect of the
23 WP 7126.24
whole of any area comprising a municipal area
ceasing to be a municipal area. Thus conversion of
Jalgaon Municipal Council to Municipal Corporations
involves not only specification of large urban area
and constitution of Municipal Corporations of city of
Jalgaon, it also involves the whole of the local area
comprising the municipal area of Jalgaon ceasing to
be a municipal area with effect from the date of
change. Therefore consulting the Municipal Council is
mandatory.
27. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State, has relied upon Section 3 of the Act of
1965 which reads as under :
Section 3. [Specification of areas as smaller urban
areas][(1) A council for every municipal area existing on
the date of coming into force of the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils
(Amendment) Act, 1994, Maharashtra XLI of 1994,
specified as a smaller urban area in a notification
issued under clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India in respect thereof, shall be
deemed to be a duly constituted Municipal Council
known by the name ………. Municipal Council.
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the State
Government may, having regard to the factors
mentioned in clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India, specify, by notification in the
Official Gazette, any local area as a smaller urban
area :
24 WP 7126.24
Provided that no such area shall be so specified as a
smaller urban area unless the State Government, after
making such inquiry as it may deem fit is satisfied
that,
(a) the population of such area is not less than
25,000; and
(b) the percentage of employment in non-
agricultural activities in such area is not less than
thirty-five per cent.
(2A)For every smaller urban area so specified by the
State Government under sub-section (2), there shall
be constituted a Municipal Council known by the
name ………………………. Municipal Council.]
(3) Before the publication of a notification under
[sub-section (2)] the State Government shall cause to
be published in the Official Gazette, and also in at
least one newspaper circulating in the area to be
specified in the notification, a proclamation
announcing the intention of Government to issue
such notification, and inviting all persons who
entertain any objection to the said proposal to submit
the same in writing with the reasons therefor, to the
Collector of the District within [not less than thirty
days] from the date of the publication of the
proclamation in the Official Gazette.
Copies of the proclamation in Marathi shall also be
posted in conspicuous places in the area proposed to
be declared as a municipal area.
(4) The Collector shall, with all reasonable despatch,
forward any objection so submitted to the State
Government.
25 WP 7126.24
(5) No such notification as aforesaid shall be issued
by the State Government unless the objections, if any,
so submitted are in its opinion insufficient or invalid.
28. According to learned Government Pleader, the bare
perusal of Section 3 of the Act of 1965, nowhere referred about
the consultation with the Gram Panchayat. As such, it is his
submission that if under the scheme of the Act, 1965, there is
no requirement of consultation with Gram Panchayat for it’s
conversion to Nagar Panchayat, the submission of the
petitioners is irrelevant and not acceptable. He has relied upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaydeep Vilas
Taware .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), in para
13, has observed as under :
13. The Petitioner has argued before us that the
consent of the Malegaon (Budruk) Gram Panchayat is
required to be obtained as a sine qua non in a
democratically elected society for declaring the area
under the Malegaon (Budruk) Gram Panchayat as a
transitional area and constituting a Nagar Panchayat
therefor. However, a bare reading of the provisions of
Section 341 (1B) read with sub-sections 3, 4, and 5 of
Section 3 shows that no such requirement is stipulated
therein. It is clear that no consent of a Gram Panchayat
is required to be obtained before the State Government
issues a notification declaring the area under the Gram
Panchayat as a ‘transitional area’.
26 WP 7126.24
29. In view of submission of both the parties and relying
upon the judgments on the same issue, we have perused the
judgment of Jalgaon Municipal Council and others (supra).
From the perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that in that
case the proposal was for converting the constitution of Jalgaon
City from Municipal Council into Municipal Corporation.
Accordingly, in the said judgment, Section 3 of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was relied upon,
wherein it is specifically mentioned that the State Government,
after consultation with the Corporation, by Notification in the
official gazette, altered the limits specified for any larger urban
area. But in the present matter, considering Section 3 of the
Act, 1965 states that the State Government, having regard to
the factors mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India, by notification in the Official Gazette, can
declare any local area as a smaller urban area. Section 3 of the
Act of 1965 nowhere contemplates that consultation or
concurrence should be obtained form the Gram Panchayat while
converting any local area as a smaller urban area. Therefore,
we are not accepting the submission of the petitioners in the
27 WP 7126.24
matter. Consequently, the reliance placed by the petitioners on
the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jalgaon Municipal Council (supra) is not applicable in the
matter.
30. It is further pertinent to note that the perusal of Section
4 (2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 clarify
that where any local area of the village is required to include or
exclude any local area or to alter the limits of a village or that a
local area shall cease to be a village, then the notification issued
in the like manner after consultation with the Standing
Committee and the Gram Sabha is necessary. According to us,
this provision contemplates that the consultation with the
Standing Committee and Gram Sabha and the Panchayat is
necessary, particularly when there is an alternation to include
or exclude any local area or to alter the limits of a village or
that a local area shall cease to be a village. According to us,
Section 4 of the Act of 1959 is para-materia with Section 6 of
the Act, 1965. Section 6 of Act of 1965 contemplates
consultation while altering the limits of Municipal Council.
Hence, reliance of petitioners upon Jalgaon Municipal Council
28 WP 7126.24
(supra) is not helpful to them.
31. It is further pertinent to note that the whole basis of
submission of the petitioners is that in absence of consultation
with the Gram Panchayat, action has been initiated and
completed by the respondents. But from record it is revealed
that after issuing the preliminary proclamation by the
respondent no.2 on 04.10.2024, the petitioners as well as other
villagers were called and hearing opportunity was granted to
them by the Collector and their objections were recorded in the
minutes of meeting held on 13.12.2024. Therefore, it can not
be said that without taking into consideration the objections of
the villagers, the respondent no.2 has issued impugned
Notification dated 11.02.2025.
32. One thing which needs to be considered in the matter is
that the primary objective of such a conversion is to facilitate
efficient urban governance and ensure the overall development
of the transitioning area. The conversion of Gram Panchayat is
in the broader public interest in providing urban infrastructure,
regulatory frameworks and essential civic amenities to the
villagers. As such, the decision to convert the Gram Panchayat
29 WP 7126.24
is rooted with an objective of ensuring the welfare of its
residents. This move on the part of government is always with
the government’s commitment to provide equitable growth
opportunities and infrastructure that match the aspirations of
the population, thereby paving the way for a prosperous and
well-governed urban centre.
33. The judicial precedents have consistently held that
when the state has duly complied with statutory requirements,
including issuing preliminary notifications, inviting objections
and considering local sentiments, the submission of the
petitioners that due to political interference this entire exercise
is done by the government cannot be accepted, because such
submission is accepted, it will amount to override the legitimate
purpose of ensuring good governance and sustainable
development. Furthermore, the transition from a rural to an
urban administrative framework is a legislative function aimed
at aligning governance structures with the socio-economic
realities of the religion and same must be viewed through the
lens of public welfare rather than political conjecture.
30 WP 7126.24
34. In the present petition, one of the objection raised by
the petitioners is that on the same day i.e. on 04.10.2024 the
draft notification as well as publication of proclamation was
issued and same shows political interference in the matter.
Furthermore, the petitioners have made allegations of malice in
the matter. It is also submission of the petitioners that there is
no consideration of the provision under Section 341-A of the
Act of 1965, wherein the requirement such as population,
percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities are not
considered in proper perspective. In this regard, the
respondents clarify that draft notification and proclamation is
required to be issued as per the mandate of Section 4 (3) of the
Act of 1965, which clearly contemplates that publication of
notification in terms of sub-section (2) and Section 3 to be
notified in the form of proclamation. As such, issuing such
notification/proclamation is the intention of declaring certain
areas as smaller urban areas and except that there is no other
procedure provided under the act for issuing the proclamation.
In support of this submission, the respondents have also pointed
out that in the same manner, the proclamations were issued in
31 WP 7126.24
the village Kanhan, Pipri, Satrapur, Sihora of Taluka Parseoni,
District-Nagpur, Gram Panchayat, Wadi, Gram Panchayat,
Digdoh and Gram Panchayat, Besa Pipla. Hence, we do not find
any material illegality in the matter while promulgating the
Notification dated 04.10.2024 in the matter.
35. In respect of malice, we find that the allegations made
by the petitioners are vague, sketchy and have no support in the
form of material. It is clarified that as per the powers conferred
to the State Government under Article 243Q of the Constitution
of India, the entire procedure has been followed in the matter.
(i) In respect of non obtaining the consent or
consultation with Gram Panchayat, it is clear that, there is no
such procedure prescribed under Section 3 of Act of 1965,
therefore, on this count, the allegation of malice or malafide
intention does not establish in the matter.
(ii) In respect of criteria for considering the
population of the village, the last decennial population census is
required to be considered. As such, last census held by the
State Government in the year 2011 was considered in the
matter. Respondents, to support this submission, has relied
32 WP 7126.24
upon the definition of population which defines as under :
2. Definitions :
In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, –
(33) “population” means the population as
ascertained at the last preceding census [of which the
relevant figures “whether provisional or final” have
been published].
[Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, the
expression ‘published’ means the latest published
relevant census figures; whether provisional or final,
and in the absence of the latest relevant census figures,
the relevant figures of the census immediately
preceding the latest census, final figures of which have
been published;]
According to the said census, the population of Yerkheda Gram
Panchayat was 15,727. Hence, considering the said census, the
population was considered which falls in consonance with the
provisions of Section 341-A of the Act of 1965.
(iii) In respect of non-agricultural employment, the
respondents have relied upon the Certificate issued by the
Tahsildar of Kamptee, who categorically stated that non-
agricultural employment, the percentage of the village Yerkheda
is around 75%. This certificate is not proved to be incorrect by
petitioners.
33 WP 7126.24
(iv) In respect of requirement about the distance, it is
clarified that Yerkheda Gram Panchayat is not more than 20 km
away from the territorial limits of Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur.
Hence, according to us, in the present matter, the
respondents, while exercising the powers under Article 243Q of
the Constitution of India read with Section 3 and 341-A of the
Act of 1965, followed the entire procedure.
36. In the background of above said factual position and
the perusal of the entire record satisfy the fact of the
respondents had initiated the proceeding for conversion of
Gram Panchayat Yerkheda into Nagar Panchayat by relying
upon Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. We further
concluded that as per Section 3 of the Act of 1965, there is no
need of consultation with the Gram Panchayat and under
Section 341-A of the Act of 1965, the necessary requirement is
followed in the matter.
37. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the
submission of the petitioners that entire action initiated by the
34 WP 7126.24
respondents only out of political vendetta. On the other hand,
the required procedure for converting Gram Panchayat into
Nagar Panchayat is followed by the respondents in the matter
and except the petitioners, there are no other persons came
forward to object the same.
38. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
the matter and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 16:48:06
[ad_2]
Source link