Rapid urbanisation in villages located on city peripheries has repeatedly compelled state governments to merge such peri-urban areas into neighbouring urban local bodies (ULBs). This necessity arises from the inability of rural laws to guide urbanisation to unfold in a sustainable manner. Once these areas are merged into an ULB, they are brought within the formal processes of urban development.
A master plan or development plan is drawn up for these areas and development control regulations of the ULB become applicable. These regulations govern construction, economic and commercial growth, environmental standards, and quality of life benchmarks in terms of roads, water, sewerage, public transportation, education, health, gardens, recreation, and other amenities that a city requires. In addition, modern urban planning increasingly incorporates GIS-based planning, climate resilience measures, disaster management frameworks, and sustainable land-use practices, which are typically absent in rural governance structures.
Although the merger process requires consultation with concerned villages, the ULB, and the state’s rural and urban development departments, it often takes considerable time. The overall compulsions of urbanisation generally lead to a merger, even when the timing is influenced by political calculations, as the ruling dispensation weighs in on the likely prospects of electoral gains and losses.
Patterns of Rural-Urban Mergers in India
In the last decade, several cities, such as Prayagraj, Mangalgiri, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Coimbatore, Chennai, Pune, and Satara, have merged villages into their municipal boundaries. These mergers typically involve peripheral villages that have rapidly urbanised and acquired distinct urban characteristics. The objective is to apply to these villages the same developmental benchmarks as the neighbouring municipality so that the entire settlement emerges as homogeneous entity. However, such mergers have generally been unpopular and have sometimes met with opposition from villagers, village leaders, municipal administrations, and municipal councillors.
Villagers fear additional taxation without improved service delivery and loss of administrative approachability due to centralisation. Village leaders perceive a loss of political power and weakened control over constituents, while municipal administrations fear increased responsibility without commensurate inflow of revenue. Councillors worry about municipal finances being shared with newly created wards from merged villages.
Despite these concerns, the need for integrated spatial planning, metropolitan governance, and environmental sustainability has often prevailed.
The Pune Municipal Corporation Experience
The expansion of the Pune Municipal Corporation illustrates the incremental nature of rural-urban mergers. The corporation, formed in 1950, initially covered 145 square kilometres, until 1985. Subsequent industrialisation and urbanisation in Pune’s neighbourhood led to the creation of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and further expansion of Pune’s limits.
In 2001, additional areas were added, increasing the area to 243 square kilometres. In October 2017, 11 fringe villages were merged, adding 81 square kilometres. In June 2021, ahead of civic elections, 2 villages covering 181 square kilometres were notified for merger, expanding the corporation to 518 square kilometres and adding around 4,00,000 people. This makes the corporation the largest ULB in the state by area.
For residents of merged villages, the problem is one of enhanced taxation, as ULBs levy higher charges than village panchayats. Although state governments generally provide a freeze on higher taxation for a grace period with a graded increase thereafter, once the grace period expires, merged populations become liable to the same taxation as the rest of the city and are subjected to a more complex regulatory regime.
While there is an expectation of improved infrastructure and governance, such expectations often remain unmet. The remotest areas of the city are usually last in the queue for service improvements, and no prior assessment is made of the ability of the municipal body to serve merged areas or of the additional resources required.
Unfunded Mandates and Service Delivery Constraints
Before mergers, villages receive state resources for services, such as water supply, sanitation, and village roads through schemes of zilla parishads and panchayat samitis. Merger into a ULB cuts this link, transferring responsibility entirely to the ULB with little state assistance. ULBs, already starved of funds, struggle with additional responsibilities, facing shortages of resources and manpower. This issue is compounded by low property tax collection efficiency, dependence on state transfers, and limited fiscal autonomy of ULBs in India.
Councillors from existing wards resist diversion of funds or staff to new areas, while newly elected councillors from merged areas lack political clout. Once a city goes beyond a certain size, it becomes difficult to ensure delivery of municipal services, such as drinking water supply, sewage and solid waste management, roads, electricity, housing, and transport facilities. As a result, outright mergers often do justice neither to the ULB nor to the erstwhile villages.
Governance, Democracy, and Livelihood Concerns
Opposition to mergers has been particularly visible in several states. In Tamil Nadu, organisations working for local self-governments have criticised moves to merge village panchayats with adjoining ULBs.
Key concerns include loss of jobs under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)—recently replaced by the Viksit Bharat-G RAM G Act, 2025, which enhanced the work guarantee to 125 days (from 100 days under MGNREGA)— hardship in accessing government services, and difficulty in reaching heads of civic bodies. Critics argue that such notifications are against democracy and social justice, affecting the possibility of women and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes getting elected.
While urbanisation may be justified where villages have urban characteristics, merging agricultural villages where agriculture is the primary livelihood is viewed as unfair. Developmental programmes for rural local bodies focus largely on livelihood projects, whereas urban programmes emphasise infrastructure.
With the merger, rural residents risk losing livelihood schemes, and local water resources may be adversely affected due to real estate pressures and land-use conversion. The powers of the Grama Sabha, which has significant authority within village jurisdiction, are lost after the merger, as executive authority shifts from elected village presidents to officials. Although governments point to area sabhas in ULBs, these lack constitutional weight, deepening fears of democratic erosion.
Protests and Local Resistance
Resistance has also been seen in Punjab, where a proposal to merge 16 villages into the Ropar Municipal Council sparked massive protests. Villagers feared deprivation of rural benefits, loss of schemes such as MGNREGA, increased urban taxes, and deterioration in quality of life, especially when existing urban areas lack basic amenities. The protestors staged a dharna and raised slogans against the proposed expansion, forcing the Council to put the resolution on hold. Similar debates have emerged in Andhra Pradesh, where corporators opposed the proposed merger of villages into the Guntur Municipal Corporation, citing lack of visible progress in villages merged earlier and persistent infrastructure gaps. Concerns were raised that expanding municipal limits without addressing past shortcomings would strain financial and administrative resources. At the same time, supporters argued that population thresholds would enable access to enhanced funding under major urban infrastructure schemes such as AMRUT and Smart Cities Mission, and allow uniform standards of infrastructure and service delivery.
Government Assurance and Consultation Processes
State governments have sought to address concerns by emphasising consultation and selective mergers. In Tamil Nadu, it has been stated that out of over 12,000 village panchayats, only a limited number have been merged, focusing on areas with no agricultural land and clear urban characteristics. Provisions have been made for lodging objections within a specified period, with assurances that decisions would be taken in consultation with the Chief Minister of the state. The state has constituted committees to oversee the process, assess needs for upgradation in peri-urban areas, elicit public views, and conduct statutory public hearings.
Additionally, governments have clarified that mergers would be demand-driven, evidence-based, and aligned with spatial planning frameworks, and undertaken only after the end of the current term of elected local bodies, with the consent of village panchayats.
Merger of Urban Local Bodies: The Delhi Case
Beyond rural-urban mergers, India has also witnessed mergers of contiguous urban local bodies, most notably in Delhi. In 2022, the North, South, and East Delhi Municipal Corporations were unified into the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The merger aimed to improve governance, municipal finances, service delivery, transparency, and eliminating administrative duplication. The earlier trifurcation had resulted in uneven territorial divisions and revenue-generating potential, leading to widening resource gaps and financial constraints that hindered statutory obligations, including payment of salaries, retirement benefits, and maintenance of civic services.
The unification sought to create a robust mechanism for synergised planning and optimal utilisation of resources, recognising that Delhi, as the national capital, could not be subjected to financial hardship and functional uncertainties. However, the merger focused primarily on unification while overlooking functional and financial domains and democratic decentralisation envisaged by the Constitution.
Global Experiences: Scale and Governance
Municipal mergers are not unique to India. Countries, such as Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and several Western European nations have undertaken such amalgamation exercises. Experiences have been mixed. While mergers have reduced administrative duplication and enabled uniform land-use planning, economic development, equity of service delivery, and larger tax bases, they have also entailed substantial transition costs, bureaucratic congestion, and perceptions of loss of local control.
Empirical studies indicate that while some cost savings may occur in administrative functions, these are often offset by higher coordination and management costs. Mergers tend to improve service delivery quality but adversely impact local democracy, reflected in reduced voter turnout, fewer candidates, weaker community attachment, and a trade-off between efficiency and democracy. Although medium-sized units often show lower per capita expenditure, there is no ideal size for a municipality, as local factors significantly influence outcomes.
Pros and Cons of Mergers
Mergers could enable economies of scale, reduce duplication of statutorily mandated jobs, lower administrative overheads and strengthen financial and technical capacity. Larger municipal bodies could handle complex services, attract investment, raise debt, and adopt best service delivery benchmarks across merged units. At the same time, smaller municipalities promote decentralisation, citizen voice, accountability, and responsiveness to local needs. Larger entities risk bureaucratic congestion, reduced competitiveness among ULBs, and weakened democratic decentralisation.
Way forward
The experience of rural-urban mergers underscores the need for careful sequencing, adequate financial support, and strong decentralisation mechanisms. Interim arrangements such as peri-urban municipal bodies, supported by core administrative officers, could allow planning of financial and governance instruments before the eventual merger, strengthening Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs), as envisaged under the 74th Constitutional Amendment, for integrated regional planning. For large ULBs, decentralised decision-making at city, zone and ward levels, supported by ward committees and consultative bodies, could combine the advantages of unification of democratic accountability.
The merger of rural local bodies into urban local bodies reflects the pressures of rapid urbanisation and the need for integrated planning. While such mergers promise improved infrastructure, governance, and access to urban amenities, they also pose challenges of unfunded mandates, service delivery constraints, loss of livelihoods, democratic dilution, and local resistance. Experiences across states and cities reveal that outright mergers, undertaken without adequate preparation and decentralisation, neither serve ULBs nor erstwhile villages effectively. A balanced approach that respects local livelihoods, ensures financial viability, strengthens decentralisation, and sequences integration remains essential for achieving the constitutional goal of strong and vibrant local self-government.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
