**Allahabad High Court Highlights Failure in Municipalities Act Compliance, Emphasizes Importance of Procedural Safeguards for Affected Communities**

Allahabad High Court has quashed the Uttar Pradesh government's notification including Barsana Dehat village in the Nagar Panchayat Barsana. The court ruled that the inclusion violated statutory and procedural safeguards under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, and the constitutional framework outlined in Article 243-Q.

The petition, filed by the Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat and its Pradhan, challenged the October 13, 2022, notification issued by the state government. The petitioners argued that their objections to the proposed inclusion were ignored, despite being filed within the stipulated time frame. The court noted this failure to consider objections as a violation of statutory provisions and natural justice.

Background of the Case

Barsana Dehat, a rural area in Mathura district, was included in the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat Barsana through the contested notification. As per the petitioners, the village is home to predominantly poor families, with over 80% of the population relying on government welfare schemes like MNREGA for their livelihood. The transition to Nagar Panchayat status, they argued, would deprive them of these benefits and impose additional financial burdens in the form of urban taxes like property and water taxes.

The notification in question was issued following a draft notification on September 15, 2022, inviting objections and suggestions. According to the Gram Panchayat, they submitted their objections on September 19, 2022, via registered post and email, with delivery confirmed on September 20, 2022. Despite this, their objections were allegedly not considered before finalizing the inclusion.

Court's Observations

The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji held that the state government failed to fulfill its statutory duty under Section 4 of the Municipalities Act, 1916. The section mandates the publication of draft notifications and requires the government to consider all objections and suggestions before issuing a final notification. The court highlighted:

"The objections of the petitioners were never considered. This failure to consider duly submitted objections strikes at the heart of the democratic and participatory process mandated under the Act."

Additionally, the court rejected the state's argument that the objections raised by the petitioners were redundant, as similar concerns had already been addressed. The Bench observed that the objections presented unique arguments about the socio-economic impact of the transition and emphasized that such concerns deserved independent consideration.

Key Implications of the Judgment

The judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in decisions affecting local governance and the livelihoods of rural communities. It reiterates that the inclusion of rural areas into urban entities, such as Nagar Panchayats, must follow a participatory process and be in the best interests of the affected populations.

The court also remarked on the potential consequences of the inclusion, which could have deprived Barsana Dehat residents of rural-centric welfare benefits while subjecting them to urban financial obligations. This decision highlights the judiciary's role in protecting vulnerable communities from administrative overreach.

The Petitioners' Concerns

In their submissions, the petitioners argued that:

Transitioning to Nagar Panchayat status would impose urban taxes and charges on already impoverished residents.

The village's dependency on rural schemes like MNREGA, Khadi Gramodyog, and others would be jeopardized.

The timing of the decision disregarded ongoing rural development projects initiated by the Gram Panchayat.

State Government's Defense

The state government contended that it had received and resolved 14 objections to the draft notification. However, the petitioners' objections were allegedly not received within the stipulated seven-day window. The court dismissed this claim, citing delivery proof provided by the petitioners.

The government also argued that public hearings were unnecessary, and the objections raised by the petitioners overlapped with those already addressed. This argument was deemed insufficient by the court.

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for administrative authorities to ensure compliance with statutory provisions while respecting the participatory rights of citizens. By quashing the inclusion of Barsana Dehat in Nagar Panchayat Barsana, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced the principles of due process and natural justice.

The case is expected to have broader implications for similar transitions of rural areas into urban jurisdictions, urging governments to prioritize socio-economic considerations and public engagement in such decisions.