IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 166 of 2008 (M/S) Gurumukh Singh S/O Sri Swaroop Singh, R/O Village Durgapur, Revenue Village Kilawali, Post Garhi Negi, Tehsil Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Panchayat Raj Uttarakhand Government. 2. District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. … Respondents. Sri P.S. Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Sri B.S.Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents. Date April 10, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by setting aside the impugned Notification No. 655/XII/07/86(27)/2007 dated 24-9-2007 (Annexure-1 to Amendment Application) in relation to the village Panchayat Kilawali and village Panchayat Durgapur as well as decision taken by the respondent no.2 dated 6-8-2007 (Annexure-6) and dated 13/14-12-2007(Annexure-C) to the writ petition. Brief facts giving to the writ petition are that the petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that 156 families had been wrongly included in village Panchayat Durgapur as has been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for othe petitioner has relied upon the provision of Section 11-F (Uttarakhand Amendment), which reads as under:- “11-F. Declaration of Panchayat Area.-(1) For the purposes of this Act the State Government may by notification 2 declare any area comprising a village or group of village, having, so far as practicable, a population of 300 in hill area and 1000 in plain area to be a Panchayat area for the purpose of this Act by such name as may be specified: Provided that the population shall not exceed 1000 in hill area and 5000 in plain area of the State as far as practicable: Further provided that for the purpose of declaration of Panchayat area no revenue village or any hamlet thereof shall be divided: Also provided that if it is not practicably possible to follow the above provisions then the State Government may relax the aforesaid restrictions by order in the specific and unavoidable circumstances. (2) The State Government may, on the request of the Gram Panchayat concerned or otherwise, and after previous publication of the proposal, by notification at any time- (a) modify the area of any Panchayat area by including therein or excluding therefrom any area of a village or group of villages; (b) alter the name of the Panchayat area; or (c) declare that any area shall cease to be a Panchayat area.” As per Section 11-F the population of a Panchayat in plain area cannot exceed 5000 and in hill area it shall not exceed 1000. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the population of village Kilawali is 1723 as per census of 2001 and the population of village Panchayat Durgapur is 2102. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that 156 families are residing in revenue area of village Kilawali and they were wrongly included in revenue village Durgapur. 3 A representation to this effect was also made to the District Magistrate. This Court by order dated 12-10-2007 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1452 of 2007 observed that the petitioner may make a representation to the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate/appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance and also directed the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. In reply, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has contended that by the notification impugned, no voters of village Kilawali have been included in village Durgapur and in previous years, two elections were also held and the petitioner was the village Pradhan of village Durgapur, as has been stated in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 reads as under:- “7. That the contents of paras 7 and 8 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted. The fact that the petitioner himself has been a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Durgapur for a long period belies his contention that he is a resident of Village Kilawali. In his Annexure-2 objection dated 1-8-2007 the petitioner has stated that the applicants/objectors have wrongly been shown in Village Durgapur but at the end of the application he has forgotten to describe himself as the resident of Village Kilawali and has rightly mentioned the correct address. Moreover, in the Panchayat Voters List of 1995 and 2002-03 the petitioner Sri Gurmukh Singh and his fellow objectors have been shown residents and voters of Village Durgapur. In the family register also the petitioner and his fellow objectors have been found to be the residents of Revenue Village Durgapur. For ready reference copies of the relevant portions of voter list of 1995 and 2002-03 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA 8 &CA-9 to this affidavit. Copies of 4 the relevant parts of the family register are also jointly being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-10 to this affidavit.” I have perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit, the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and both the orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 6-8-2007 and dated 13/14-12-2007. I have also gone through the representation made by the petitioner dated 1-8-2007 wherein prayer was made that the area of village Durgapur and Nawalpur be included in village Panchayat Kilawali on the ground that 156 families of village Panchayat Durgapur are residing in revenue village Kilawali. By perusal of these documents, it shows that the name of the petitioner finds place in village Durgapur. In the memo of writ petition also, the petitioner has mentioned his address as resident of village Durgapur, Revenue village Kilawali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the report of Lekhpal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The report was submitted to Tehsildar Jaspur by Lekhpal concerned on 4-8-2007. It has been stated therein that there are 191 families of village Durgapur of Gram Panchayat Durgapur in 57-Jaspur Legislative Assembly Constituency voter list 2007 Part no. 95 and the number of voters is 1000. Out of them, 35 families are residing within the area of revenue village Durgapur and 156 families are residing within the area of revenue village Kilawali. Both the villages have common boundaries. It has been further stated in the report by the Lekhpal that there are 210 families in village Kilawali comprising 1081 voters and that village Kilawali, Tehsil Jaspur is under consolidation proceeding and he has no record with him. The report was forwarded to Tehsildar, who in turn forwarded the report to Up Zila Adhikari Kashipur and By Annexure 4, the Up Ziladhikari Kashipur forwarded the report to the District 5 Magistrate. In the objection the petitioner had prayed that earlier there was one village Panchayat Kilawali comprising village Durgapur and Nawalpur. The District Magistrate passed the order on 6-8-2007, wherein it was specifically mentioned that earlier there was one village Panchayat Kilawali, wherein three revenue villages were included, namely Kilawali, Durgapur and Nawalpur, but in earlier delimitation, by including revenue villages Durgapur and Nawalpur, separate village Panchayat was formed. The objection of the petitioner before the Collector was that because earlier there was only one Panchayat and the population of village Panchayat can exceed upto 5000 in plain, the revenue villages Durgapur and Nawalpur be again included in village Panchayat Kilawali. The objection was rejected on the ground that on the basis of census of 2001, there are separate village Panchayats and elections were held on the basis of delimitation as has been made and it was decided to maintain the earlier form/shape of village Panchayat Kilawali and Durgapur. Again, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the District Magistrate considered the case of the petitioner and the representation Annexure 7 has been rejected by a speaking order dated 14-12-2007 inter alia on the grounds as detailed in the order dated 6-8-2007. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner had been Gram Pradhan of village Panchayat Durgapur from 1987 to 1995. In the order dated 14-12-2007 one another ground for rejection of representation has been mentioned that Gurumukh Singh, petitioner, had been the village Pradhan since the years 1987 to 1995 and his name finds place in the voters’ list as well as in the family register of village Durgapur. Moreover, in the representation prayer was made by the petitioner that the revenue village Durgapur and Nawalpur be included in the village Panchayat Kilawali and one village Panchayat be formed. The main prayer in the objection/representation which was made to the Collector by the petitioner was that the area of 6 village Durgapur and that of Nawalpur be included in village Kilawali and reliance was placed on the provision of Section 11-F (supra). It is pertinent to mention here that since the petitioner had been the village Pradhan of village Panchayat Durgapur since 1987 to 1995 and at the time of delimitation, he had not challenged the delimitation and no objections were filed earlier by him and after so many years, he has filed the present writ petition to include the area of village Panchayat Durgapur and Nawalpur in Kilawali and these facts were within the knowledge of the petitioner that some families of the village are residing in the area of revenue village Kilawali. Moreover, as per documents Annexure CA-9 and CA-10, he is a resident of village Durgapur, has been mentioned in the family register, the writ petition on his behest cannot be entertained and he is estopped by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the material before this court, it is obvious that there was no representation before the Collector made by the petitioner to include 156 families in village Panchayat Kilawali, hence the argument of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that 156 families be transferred to village Panchayat Kilawali is misconceived. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, I am of the view that the petitioner has utterly failed to make out a case of interference by this Court for setting aside the Government Notification No. 655/XII/07/86(27)/2007 dated 24-9-2007 which has been issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Uttarakhand Amendment). It is obvious from the record that after hearing the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar by his order dated 14-12- 7 2007. The order passed by the District Magistrate does not suffer from perversity or manifest error of law. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 8