Citizens' Issues
Building a Better India – Part 16: Reorganisation of states and union territories

As india's population density increases, there is a need to create smaller administration units for better development only after taking consent of the citizens of the respective states

The first States Re-organising Committee (SRC) divided India into 14 states and 6 union territories. Historically smaller states like Goa, Punjab and Haryana have recorded higher and faster economic growth, as smaller states are easier to manage and administer.

Hence, the following larger states may be divided into smaller ones after taking consent of the citizens of the respective states and not the way Andhra Pradesh has been divided recently, giving rise to animosity and wide spread public chaos. This must be followed by efforts to make sure that inter-state trade and commerce should not suffer and there should be free movement of goods between states, which obviously requires the abolition of Central Sales Tax and a uniformity of rates of Value Added Tax across all states.

The state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) be divided in to Paschim UP (capital at Ghaziabad), Kendriya Uttar Pradesh (Capital at Lucknow) and Purvanchal (capital at Gorakhpur or Varanasi)

Maharashtra be divided in to Western Maharashtra (capital at Mumbai) and Eastern Maharashtra/ Vidarbha (capital at Nagpur)

Rajasthan into Paschim Rajasthan (capital at Jodhpur) and Purvi Rajasthan (capital at Jaipur).

Tamil Nadu be divided in to South Tamil Nadu (capital at Madurai) and North Tamil Nadu (capital at Chennai)

Karnataka into North Karnataka (capital at Bijapur or a new city) and South Karnataka (capital at Bangalore)

West Bengal in to south Bengal (capital Kolkata ) and north Bengal  consisting of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Cooch Bihar, South and North Dinajpur with capital at Jalpaiguri .

For resolving the Gorkhaland impasse, there could be no harm in creating a separate Gorkhaland, otherwise the district of Darjeeling can be declared as a Union Territory. It is certainly not in the national interest to antagonise the Gorkhas who have made supreme sacrifices for the country.

A new state called Indraprastha:

Delhi has grown enormously, both in size and population. It may be expanded by including parts of adjoining districts, namely Alwar, Gurgaon, Rewari, Sonipat, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Mathura and Gautama Buddha Nagar. This state can be called Indraprastha with Delhi as its capital city, with police under the state govt excluding an area of 4 Km radius around Parliament House to be policed by the Central Government with the Central Reserve Police Force. If this model is accepted, the concept and provision of national capital region (NCR) will automatically become redundant.

Union Territories:

Chandigarh has witnessed a huge expansion in the last two decades and can be considered for statehood with inclusion of Mohali and Panchkula after taking public opinion and can continue to be the capital of Punjab and Haryana. However, it is better if Punjab shifts its capital to jalandhar (centre of Punjab state) and Haryana shifts it’s capital to Karnal or Jind, or else both states can start building new capital cities right in the centre of the states on the lines of Naya Raipur being built as the new capital of Chhattisgarh.

Capital cities of big states, while retaining this status, could come under the direct administration of central government for speedy development, beautification and better administration. There can be a debate on this issue in parliament followed by formal referendum and if people favour this change, let it so happen.

There is neither any justification nor any requirement of tiny union territories like Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu. The former should be merged with Maharashtra and latter with Gujarat.

A small piece of land named Yanon based in Andhra Pradesh (10 sq meter area near Godavari basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the distant Puducherry should be merged with Seemandhra.

The new and appropriate name of union territories should be central govt managed Areas (CGMA).

Rationalisation of laws:

There is no logic or reason to continue with more than 50 different central Acts on reorganisation of states particularly as many of such acts are now absolutely redundant and moreover the basic objectives of such acts have already been achieved and there are no pending issues, disputes or claims.

And hence only one consolidated Act called “Indian States Re-organisation Act” should be enacted  for repeal of the following different acts on this subject, after providing for necessary safeguards and provisions for older Acts in the new act:

1. Absorbed Areas (Laws ) Act 1954
2. Acquired Territories ( Merger) Act 1960
3. Andhra Pradesh and Madras ( Alteration and boundaries) Act 1959
4. Andhra Pradesh and Mysore ( Transfer of territory) Act 1968
5. Anti-Apartheid ( United Nations Convention) Act 1968
6. Assam ( Alteration of boundaries) Act 1951
7. Assam municipal ( Manipur Amendment) Act 1961
8. Assam Reorganisation ( Meghalaya) Act 1969
9. Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000
10. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh ( Alteration of Boundaries) Act
11. Bihar and West Bengal ( Transfer of territories) Act
12. Bikrama Singh’ Estate Act 1883
13. Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960
14. Boundaries Act 1847
15. Boundary-marks, Bombay 1846
16. Broach and Kaira Encumbered Estates Act 1877
17. Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation ( Chandigarh Amendment) Act 1973
18. Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act 1876
19. Civil defence Act 1888
20. Cooch-Behar (Assimilation of Laws) Act 1950
21. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Act 1961
22. Dehra Dun 1871
23. Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Land development Act 1948
24. Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act 1987
25. Haryana and U.P (Alteration of Boundaries) Act
26. Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State ) Act 1954
27. Junagarh Administration (Property) Act 1948
28. King of Oudh Estate act 1887
29. King of Oudh’s Estate Act 1888
30. King of Oudh’s Estate Validation  Act 1917
31. Lushai Hills District ( Change of Names) Act 1954
(This district has already been converted into state of   Meghalaya)
32. Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2000
33. Merged States ( Laws) Act 1949
34. Murshidad Act 1891
35. Murshidad Estate Administration Act 1933
36. Nagahills-Tuensang Area Act
37. North- Eastern Area ( Reorganisation) Act 1971
38. Oudh Estate Act 1869
39. Oudh Sub-settlement act 1866
40. Oudh Taluqdars Relief Act 1870
41. Oudhs Wasikas Act 1886
42. Partition of revenue paying estates 1863
43. Porahat Estate Act 1893
44. Kohima and Mokokchung Districts) Act 1988
45. Raipur and Khattra Laws Act 1879
46.  Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh Act 1959
47. State of Arunachal Pradesh Act 1986
48. State of Himachal Pradesh Act 1970
49. State of Mizoram Act 1986
50. State of Nagaland Act
51. Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2000

You may also want to read...





Mumbai builder fined Rs7 lakh for deficiency in services

The builder has been asked by the state consumer forum to repay money collected from society members towards formation of the society, sewerage taxes and other costs incurred since 1998

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Liberty Investments Pvt Ltd to pay Rs7.40 lakh to a Mumbai-based co-operative housing society (CHS), for failing to fulfill statutory obligations of forming a CHS and procuring various important documents.


The builder has also been ordered to refund Rs5.47 lakh that the society members had paid towards formation of the society, sewerage taxes and other costs incurred over the years. Additionally, the builder will also have to procure the occupation certificate and execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the society within a period of four months.


Since the builder failed to form a CHS in 1998, members of Nadia Apartment CHS Ltd, located in Santa Cruz, were compelled to form their own co-operative housing society.



Nikhil Gadodia

3 years ago

Does it really work? I have my builder absconding for ages & it took me 6 years to fight with my Society members to get my Membership. Even now, they are not considering us as members. We still do not have OC & other basic amenities. Wonder if really such a thing can be done against the builder.

Supreme Court turns down Asaram Bapu’s bail plea

Refusing to grant bail to Asaram Bapu, the Supreme Court asked him to approach the High Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to grant bail to Asaram Bapu in a rape case filed in Gujarat. The court asked him to approach the High Court.


The apex court, however, has agreed to hear his bail plea in another rape case lodged against him in Rajasthan and has issued a notice to the State Government.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)