SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 144

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Rajesh Kumar And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Election Commissioner U.P. Lko. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 1113 of 2026
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anshuman Singh, Vipul Singh
For the Respondent: Anurag Kumar Singh

A person's claim to be an ordinary resident for electoral registration must be substantiated by actual residency proof, exceeding mere property possession, as stated in Section 9(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 9(3) - Challenge to the rejection of a petitioner's claim for inclusion in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat- Kandaari based on alleged residency - Court held that without sufficient proof of actual residence in Kandaari, the petitioner shall remain registered in Bambhauri. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

(B) Residency and electoral rolls - A person claiming to be an ordinary resident must substantiate their claim beyond mere possession of property in the area; transient occupancy does not establish residency as per the Act’s explanation. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the rejection of their claim to be a resident of Village Panchayat- Kandaari, despite evidence supporting their family’s residency in Village Panchayat- Bambhauri, where they were recorded in the electoral roll.

Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the S.D.M.’s conclusion that the petitioners' residency claims lacked substantiation and reaffirmed their electoral roll registration in Bambhauri.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around the determination of ordinary residency under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, particularly distinguishing between mere possession of a dwelling and actual ordinary residence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the lack of evidence supporting the petitioners’ claims of residence in Village Panchayat- Kandaari, affirming the legal principle that residency must be established with verifiable proof beyond property ownership.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the rejection of residency claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. interpretation of residency criteria under u.p. panchayat raj act. (Para 6 , 7)
3. findings on ordinary residency status based on evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Anshuman Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the State Election Commission representing the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the S.D.M., Mahmoodabad, District- Sitapur whereby the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2025 for treating him as a resident of Village Panchayat - Kandaari, has been rejected. The ground of rejection is that earlier the petitioner was a resident of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri and the petitioner's father, wife and children are still continuing as residents of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. Therefore, the petitioner shall also be treated as a resident of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri.

3. It has been pleaded in the petition that earlier the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Village Panchayat- Bambhauri in the elections held in the year 2005. At that time, the said Village Panchayat comprised of eight villages. Subsequently in the year 2015, a new Village Panchayat- Kandaari comprising of 3 villages was carved out from Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri in the year 2015 and he held that Office till the year 2021. In the year 2021, the petitioner lost election for Pradhan of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri and the opposite party No.4 was elected as Pradhan. The petitioner claims to have shifted his residence from Village Panchayat- Bambhauri to Shahzadpur, which is a hamlet of Village Panchayat- Kandaari. The petitioner has been issued a domicile certificate by the Competent Authority.

4. On 26.09.2025, the father of the petitioner No.1 had moved an application for striking out the petitioners’ names from the voters’ list of the Village Panchayat- Bambhauri and, accordingly, their names have been struck out from the voters’ list of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. Thereafter the petitioners sought inclusion of their names in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat- Kandaari. This claim has been rejected by the impugned order 24.12.2025.

5. It is recorded in the order dated 24.12.2025 that the names of other family members of the petitioners, namely, Jwala Prasad- father of the petitioner No.-1, Usha Devi wife of the petitioner No.1, Jyoti Yadav and Manjari Yadav - daughters of the petitioner No.1 and Devendra Singh and Gyanendra Singh - sons of the petitioner No.1, are recorded in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. During inquiry, it came to light that Rakesh Kumar, son of Banwari Lal has provided a room in the Sehen of his house to the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 has put up his name plate on it portraying it to be his residence, but there was no evidence of the residence of the petitioner No.1 in the said room. Although the petitioner has submitted affidavits of some persons, the affidavits were pre-prepared affidavits. Several villagers have objected stating that the petitioners are not residents of Village Panchayat- Kandaari and some of them have given affidavits stating that the petitioner and his family members are residents of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri and their names are recorded in the electoral roll of that Village.

6. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 9 (3) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides that “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (7) every person who has attained the age of 18 years of the first day of January

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top