The Court upheld the State Government’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.
It held that the legal conditions for declaring or extending an urban area were satisfied.
The village will therefore remain part of Barbigha Nagar Parishad unless changed by future law or policy.
Case Background
The case arose from a notification issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, vide Memo No.1328 dated 17.03.2021.
By this notification, Gram Panchayat Samas Khurd in district Sheikhpura was included in Barbigha Nagar Parishad. The notification was issued under Section 8 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, which allows the State Government to alter municipal limits.
The petitioner, an ex-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Samas Khurd, felt aggrieved by this change. He approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction, challenging the notification.
The petitioner claimed that most residents of the Gram Panchayat were engaged in agriculture and that the Panchayat lay several kilometres away from Barbigha town. He asserted that the State had ignored villagers’ objections and wrongly converted a mainly agricultural rural area into part of an urban local body.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad heard the matter online due to COVID-19 restrictions. The core question was whether the State Government had legally extended Barbigha Nagar Parishad to include Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat.
The petitioner’s main argument rested on the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. He claimed that, for any area to be declared urban, the total population of main cultivator workers and marginal cultivator workers must be below 50% of the total workers in that area.
According to the petitioner, 90% to 95% of the people in Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat were engaged in agricultural farming. He also argued, with reference to paragraph 14 of his writ petition, that about 75% of the population of the Gram Panchayat were either marginal cultivator workers or main cultivator workers.
On this basis, he contended that the Panchayat could not legally be treated as part of an urban area. In his view, its rural character should have been preserved, and it should not have been included within Barbigha Nagar Parishad.
The petitioner further claimed that the villages under Gram Panchayat Samas Khurd were located 5 to 10 kilometres away from the existing Nagar Parishad, Barbigha. He alleged that nearer villages had been left out, while his Gram Panchayat was deliberately targeted against the interests of its villagers.
He stated that he had filed objections when the proposal to include the Gram Panchayat in Barbigha Nagar Parishad was published. According to him, these objections were not properly considered and were rejected without proper application of mind.
On the other hand, the State Government filed a detailed counter affidavit. From this affidavit, the Court noted that Bihar had undertaken a statewide exercise for constituting new urban bodies and for upgrading or extending existing urban local bodies.
During review of proposals received from various districts, the Department felt that guidelines were needed and that a committee under the District Magistrate should review the amended proposals. Accordingly, by letter dated 13.12.2020, the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, asked all District Magistrates to send amended proposals for constitution of new urban bodies.
In response, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, sent a letter dated 19.12.2020 recommending extension of Barbigha Nagar Parishad. Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit showed that the villages of Gram Panchayat Samas Khurd were specifically recommended for inclusion by way of extension.
On the basis of this and other statistics provided by the District Magistrate, the State asserted that in the proposed extended area of Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, the combined population of main and marginal cultivator workers was only 23.6% of the total number of workers.
Acting on these materials, the Department issued a notification dated 26.12.2020 under Sections 3(1)(a), 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. This notification declared the State Government’s intention to alter the area of Barbigha Nagar Parishad by way of extension. Thirteen new villages, including village Samas Khurd, were proposed to be added. Objections were invited under Section 5 of the Act.
A district-level committee headed by the District Magistrate considered these objections. Later, in pursuance of a departmental letter dated 10.03.2021, the District Magistrate sent a fresh proposal on the same day, both for constitution and extension of municipal bodies in Sheikhpura district and for removal of anomalies flagged by the Census Directorate.
From this fresh proposal, it emerged that in the extended Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, the total number of main and marginal cultivator workers was 835, forming only 23.12% of the total workers. On the basis of all these materials and recommendations, the impugned notification dated 17.03.2021 was issued, finally extending the area of Barbigha Nagar Parishad to include Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat.
The State argued that the petitioner was under a wrong impression regarding the legal requirement. According to the State, the Act did not require checking the percentage of agricultural workers Gram Panchayat-wise or village-wise. Instead, what mattered was the percentage for the entire proposed extended urban area taken as one unit.
The State further informed the Court that objections from various villages had in fact been considered. Some objections were accepted, resulting in exclusion of certain villages that were initially proposed to be included in Barbigha Nagar Parishad. This, the State said, showed that there had been an active and serious examination of objections.
Before dealing with these rival contentions, the Court carefully examined the scheme of Section 8 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and related provisions. Section 8 gives the State power to abolish or alter municipal limits through notification. Clause (c) allows inclusion of any local area contiguous to the existing municipal area.
The first proviso to Section 8 requires that, while altering limits, the State must follow, as far as applicable, the procedure laid down for constitution of a municipal area under the Act. This procedure is found in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. The second proviso to Section 8 requires that the views of any municipality affected by such a notification must be obtained and considered before making the final declaration.
Section 3 lays down that, after such enquiry as it considers fit and having regard to several factors—population, density, revenue for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, economic importance, and other prescribed factors—the State Government may by notification declare its intention to specify an area as a larger urban area, medium urban area, or transitional area.
The first proviso to Section 3(1) fixes population thresholds for each category. The second proviso, which was central to the petitioner’s challenge, requires that the non-agricultural population in all cases must be 75% or more. The Court noted that a declaration under Section 3 would be invalid if it did not meet this mandatory condition.
The Bench observed that the petitioner had not claimed any violation of the first proviso to Section 3(1). The only attack was based on the second proviso relating to the proportion of agricultural workers.
The Court agreed with the State’s submission that the percentage of main and marginal cultivator workers is not to be calculated for each individual village or Gram Panchayat. Instead, it must be computed for “such area” as a whole—that is, the entire proposed municipal area which the State intends to constitute or extend.
On this point, the Bench relied on its own recent Division Bench judgment dated 17.01.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 7446 of 2021 and analogous matters, titled Usha Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others. There, the Court had held that the requirements in Sections 3 and 7 of the Act relate to the municipal area that is to come into existence after the process of constitution or upgradation, not to each rural area or individual Panchayat being merged.
Quoting paragraphs 21 to 23 of Usha Devi, the Bench reiterated that the necessary factors—population, density, non-agricultural employment, economic importance, and related criteria—must be satisfied in respect of the final municipal area, not each component village. The earlier case had already rejected the argument that every Gram Panchayat must individually meet the non-agricultural population requirement.
Applying this settled interpretation, the Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the percentage of cultivator workers only in Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat was misplaced and “misconceived and fallacious”. What mattered was the percentage for the entire extended Barbigha Nagar Parishad.
In paragraph 7(H) of the State’s counter affidavit, it was clearly stated that in the extended Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, the combined population of main and marginal cultivator workers was 23.12% of the total workers. This statement was not denied in any rejoinder or otherwise and therefore remained uncontroverted on record. The Court treated it as an admitted position.
The Court then addressed the petitioner’s separate argument that Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat was not contiguous to Barbigha Nagar Parishad and therefore could not be included under Section 8(c). For this, the Bench referred to Annexure-4 of the writ petition itself.
From Annexure-4, the Court noted that, after considering objections, new recommendations had been made for constitution, upgradation and extension of municipal areas in Sheikhpura district, including Barbigha Nagar Parishad. The petitioner’s objections—that the Gram Panchayat villages were 5–10 kilometres away and that 80% of residents were agriculturists—had been explicitly considered.
While dealing with these objections, the District Magistrate recorded a clear finding that Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat and Barbigha Nagar Parishad have adjoining boundaries. This directly countered the petitioner’s claim of non-contiguity.
Given this factual finding, which emerged from the material placed by the petitioner himself, the Court rejected the contention that the area was not contiguous as required by Section 8(c).
The Bench then turned to the larger question of how far courts can interfere with such notifications. It referred again to its decision in Usha Devi, where it had examined the scope of judicial review in matters of constitution or upgradation of urban local bodies.
In Usha Devi, after considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1989) 3 SCC 396, the Court had held that notifications issued under Chapter II of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, in exercise of powers traceable to Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, possess a legislative character rather than a purely administrative or adjudicatory one.
The Division Bench reproduced paragraphs 47 to 49 and 51 to 52 of Usha Devi. These passages clarify that the process of declaring or constituting a municipal area is not an adjudicatory function. The Act only requires that inhabitants be given an opportunity to file objections and that the State “take such objection into consideration”. There is no requirement to pass detailed, reasoned orders on each objection.
Therefore, once objections have been invited, considered, and a notification is issued, constitutional courts under Article 226 of the Constitution should not sit in judgment over the policy decision to upgrade or extend a municipal area. The courts cannot apply strict rules of natural justice demanding elaborate speaking orders on each objection.
Applying these principles, the Bench in the present case concluded that the State had followed the prescribed statutory procedure. The population and worker composition of the entire extended Barbigha Nagar Parishad satisfied Section 3. Objections, including those of the petitioner, had been considered at the district level. Some villages were excluded, showing that the process was not mechanical.
There was no violation of the mandatory conditions of the Act. The claim about non-contiguity was contradicted by official records. In these circumstances, the Court held that the notification did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for villagers and local bodies across Bihar who may be affected by inclusion of rural areas within municipalities or Nagar Parishads.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that when the State extends an urban body, it will look at the entire proposed municipal area as one unit. It will not test each Gram Panchayat separately for the percentage of agricultural workers or non-agricultural population.
The decision also confirms that once the State has followed the statutory process—issued intention notifications, invited objections, placed matters before a district committee, and then issued a final notification—courts will normally not interfere with such policy decisions.
For citizens, this means that challenging inclusion in a municipal area on the sole ground that their own village is largely agricultural, or slightly distant, is unlikely to succeed if the overall extended urban area meets legal requirements and the area is shown to be contiguous.
The ruling reinforces the earlier Division Bench decision in Usha Devi and aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija on the limited role of courts in municipal boundary decisions.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the notification dated 17.03.2021 extending Barbigha Nagar Parishad to include Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat was invalid because most residents of that Gram Panchayat were cultivator workers and the area was allegedly non-contiguous.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the percentage of main and marginal cultivator workers has to be assessed for the entire proposed extended municipal area, not village-wise, and that in this case the percentage was well below the statutory limit. The Court also accepted the District Magistrate’s finding that Samas Khurd Gram Panchayat was contiguous with Barbigha Nagar Parishad. -
Issue: Whether the State was required to give detailed, reasoned decisions on each objection filed against the proposal to extend Barbigha Nagar Parishad.
Answer: No. Relying on Usha Devi and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija, the Court held that notifications under Chapter II of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 have a legislative character. The State need only invite and consider objections; it is not bound to pass speaking orders on them, and courts will not review such policy decisions like adjudicatory orders.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Usha Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others, C.W.J.C. No. 7446 of 2021 and analogous matter (Division Bench judgment dated 17.01.2022).
- Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1989) 3 SCC 396.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11414 of 2021
Case Title: Kirti Azad @ Chunchun vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 695
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 15.02.2022
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Dr Anjani Prasad Singh, Advocate
- For the respondent State: Mr Abbas Haider, Standing Counsel-6
- For respondent no. 5 (Nagar Parishad Barbigha): Mr Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Statute Involved: Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (particularly Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8)
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition challenging a State Government notification altering municipal limits and including a Gram Panchayat within Barbigha Nagar Parishad.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 11414 of 2021
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
