Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The sole petitioner claims to be the resident of village Muskipur under Gram Panchayat Muskipur. He has put to challenge a notification dated 26.12.2020 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, declaring its intention to up-grade Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Panchayat to Gogri-Jamalpur Nagar Parishad including within its area, the said Muskipur Gram Panchayat. The petitioner’s challenge to the said notification is mainly on two grounds as is evident from the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that no consent has been taken from the Gram Panchayat, Muskipur, before issuance of the said notification, requisite under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. It is secondly submitted that the notification does not satisfy the requirement of population as stipulated under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act.

3. On careful reading of the pleadings in the writ application, in our opinion, the second contention deserves to be rejected outright inasmuch as there is no averment at all to support the said contention that the notification does not fulfill the requirements under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act. The said contention is accordingly rejected.

4. So far as the petitioner’s contention with relation to requirement of obtaining consent from the Gram Panchayat, stipulated under Section 11 of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that the same too cannot be sustained in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered on 09.03.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 8511 of 2021* (Manoj Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others and other analogous matters). Paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the said decision in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) are relevant and are being reproduced hereinbelow:—

“5. He has submitted that the counter affidavit does not disclose that the mandate under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (in short ‘the Panchayat Raj Act’) has been complied. The substance of the submission is that there has been no consultation with the Panchayats while excluding area/village(s) from a Panchayat area and constituting a Municipal Area. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision dated 23.04.2010, rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 10074 of 2009 (Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others). Since the issue regarding the requirement under Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act warranting consultation with the Panchayat Body, has not been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Usha Devi (supra), the decision rendered in Neelam Devi (supra) on this point holds the field. In view of decision rendered in Neelam Devi (supra), non-compliance with the statutory requirement of consultation with the Gram Panchayats under Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act in the instant case is by itself sufficient to hold that the exercise undertaken by the authorities is illegal.

xxx xxx xxx

9. As per the submission of the petitioners’ counsel, we, for the moment, are concerned with the first ground noted above, which has been dealt with and decided by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Neelam Devi (supra). The statutory provision has been considered under the unamended Panchayat Raj Act, which has subsequently been amended. The action of the State authorities, which is challenged in the instant proceeding is under the amended provisions, pursuant to the Bihar Panchayat Raj Amendment Act, 2017. The provision of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, as existing pursuant to the 2017 amendment, has been considered by this Court in the case of Usha Devi (supra). The relevant paragraph being paragraphs 24 to 27 of the same, which this Court considers it useful to reproduce:—

“24. There is also no legal basis for the petitioners to contend that till such time their tenure as Mukhiya under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for brevit