Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2022/2794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an elected Block Pramukh complaining about the non-consideration of his Kshettra Panchayat's development plan by the Zila Panchayat. The Court directed the Zila Panchayat to hold a meeting on 25.06.2022 to consider the plan and take a decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hold a meeting of the Zila Panchayat on 25.06.2022 to consider the development plan submitted by Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad and take a decision thereon.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2794 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Nishi Chaudhary,Pooja Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Subhash Chandra Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶6

This Court on 18th May, 2022 has passed the following order:

¶7

"Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur.

¶8

It is unfortunate that the dispute between two local bodies constituted as Institutions of local self governance has been brought before the Court.

¶9

The petitioner is an elected Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur who has a grievance that development plan duly prepared by the Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad has not been considered since long by the Zila Panchayat in terms of the requirement of Section 86 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. It has been stated that initially the development plan was prepared and presented by the Kshettra Panchayat to Zila Panchayat on 20.07.2021, however, again the same was presented on 05.10.2021 as is apparent from a perusal of letter dated 05.10.2021 written by the Block Development Officer, Mahmoodabad to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur, which has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. It has, thus, been argued that despite submission of plan, Zila Panchayat has not considered the same on account of which various development works with which Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad is statutorily charged, could not be commenced.

¶10

Sri Pandey, learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, however, states that earlier the District Panchayat Raj Officer had required all the Block Development Officers, Sitapur by letter dated 03.08.2021 that development plan of the

¶11

Kshettra Panchayat be submitted in the office of Zila Panchayat by 05.08.2021, however, said plan pertaining to Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad was not presented and the same could not be considered by the House of Zila Panchayat. He, however, states that now the development plan has been received and the same shall be considered in the next meeting of the Zila Panchayat.

¶12

Having regard to the aforementioned piquant situation which has arisen on account of non-consideration of the plan submitted by the Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad to the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, we can only observe that Section 86 of the Act provides for development plan which can be termed to be statutory in nature. Section 86 requires that Kshettra Panchayat shall prepare a development plan every year for development block and the plan so prepared shall be approved by the Kshettra Panchayat and thereafter shall be submitted to the Zila Panchayat by the Block Development Officer.

¶13

On record, there is a letter dated 05.10.2021 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer whereby all the Block Development Officers, Sitapur were required to submit their development plans. In pursuance of said letter, it has been stated that Kshettra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad has submitted its plan on 05.10.2021.

¶14

Learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat has submitted, as observed above, that plan submitted by the Kshettra Panchayat,Mahmoodabad shall be considered in the next meeting of the Zila Panchayat.

¶15

In these circumstances, let this matter be listed day after tomorrow i.e. 20.05.2022 as fresh.

¶16

Learned State Counsel as also the learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur shall seek instructions as to whether within what minimum time, the meeting of the House shall be held."

¶17

Mr. Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur on the basis of instructions received from Chairman, Zila Panchayat has stated that the meeting of the house of Zila Panchayat is scheduled to be held on 25th June, 2022 and in the said meeting the development plan of Kshetra Panchayat, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur shall also be considered for approval.

¶18

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel representing the Zila Panchayat, this writ

¶19

petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the authorities concerned to hold meeting of the house of Zila Panchayat on 25th June, 2022 for the development plan as proposed/submitted by the Kshetra Panchayat, Mahmoodabar, Sitapur shall be considered and appropriate decision thereon shall be taken.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by RAM SINGH Date: 2022.05.20 17:05:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Goel and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning and Others

Indrajeet Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Mohammad Mujbil Alias Mohd. Muzammil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Fisheries Deptt. , Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Ram Pratap Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Urban Development Dept. Civil Sect. Lko and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Lko. and Ors. Vs Ram Singh