16 July 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a state government notification that restructured a Gram Panchayat in the Dhule district of Maharashtra. The petitioners, residents of Burudkhe village, contested the notification dated June 17, 2022, which dissolved the long-standing Burudkhe Panchayat and created two new ones: Panchmauli and Pinjarzadi.

Background of the Case:

The original Burudkhe Panchayat, established in 1959, included the villages of Burudkhe, Pinjarzadi, Sabarsonda, and Panchmauli. In 2020, residents of Pinjarzadi requested a separate Panchayat, citing a large population and distance from the main village. A Gram Sabha (village assembly) of Burudkhe Panchayat passed a resolution to exclude Pinjarzadi and Sabarsonda to form a new Panchayat. This proposal was subsequently approved by the Zilla Parishad and forwarded to the State Government.

The State Government, however, issued a notification that bifurcated the original Panchayat into two new entities:

• Panchmauli Panchayat: Comprising the villages of Panchmauli and Burudkhe.
• Pinjarzadi Panchayat: Comprising the villages of Pinjarzadi and Sabarsonda.

Petitioners' Arguments:

The petitioners raised two primary objections:

1. Violation of Gram Sabha's Resolution: They argued that the State's action was contrary to the Gram Sabha's resolution, which only sought to separate Pinjarzadi and Sabarsonda, not to abolish the Burudkhe Panchayat entirely. The creation of a new Panchayat named Panchmauli, which included Burudkhe village, was deemed inconsistent with the original request.
2. Scheduled Area Status: The petitioners contended that Burudkhe village was designated as a Scheduled Area in 1985, and its status could not be altered without the assent of the President of India. They claimed the new notification affected this status.

Court's Ruling and Rationale:

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the State's actions to be legally sound and in compliance with the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

1. Compliance with Statutory Mandate: The court pointed out that the decision to name a Panchayat is not a matter of choice but is governed by Section 4 of the Act, which mandates that a Panchayat be named after the village with the largest population within its jurisdiction. Based on census data, the population of Panchmauli (1219) was greater than that of Burudkhe (518), and Pinjarzadi (1509) was larger than Sabarsonda (650). Therefore, the new names were consistent with the law. The court also held that the state's consultation with the Gram Sabha and Zilla Parishad, as evidenced by the submitted documents, satisfied the legal requirement of consultation.
2. No Impact on Scheduled Area Status: The court rejected the argument regarding the Scheduled Area status. It clarified that the 1985 notification designated "Burudkhe Village," not the "Burudkhe Panchayat," as a Scheduled Area. The new notification creating the Panchmauli Panchayat did not change the Scheduled Area status of Burudkhe village itself, nor did it require presidential assent. The court concluded that the two notifications operate in different spheres and do not conflict with each other.

The court's decision affirms the State Government's authority to constitute and alter Gram Panchayats based on legal provisions, population data, and a consultative process. The elections held for the two new Panchayats were also deemed valid.