Bhika Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 1482 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 27965 of 2025)

BHIKA RAM & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 05.08.2025

passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan by which appeal preferred by respondent nos. 6 to 9

was allowed and order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned

Single Judge has been set aside. For a proper appreciation of

controversy, the relevant facts, in brief, may be noted.

3. The appellants and respondent Nos. 6 to 9, are residents of

village Sohda, District Barmer in the State of Rajasthan. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.12.19 17:15:06 IST Reason: 1

4. Pursuant to a proposal submitted by the Gram Panchayat

Sohda, for the creation of new Revenue Villages, the Tehsildar

Gida (Land Records), District Barmer, issued certificates dated

24.12.2020 stating that he had personally and thoroughly

verified all the relevant aspects, concerning formation of four new

Revenue Villages, namely (i) Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani, (ii)

Sagatsar, (iii) Amargarh and (iv) Hemnagar carved out of

Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Revenue Village Sohda, Patwar Mandal

Sohda, District Barmer. It was specified therein that the

headquarters of Revenue Villages Sagatsar and Amargarh would

be at Khasra Nos.118 and 73. The certificate further recorded

that the proposed villages were not associated with any

individual, religion, caste or community and there existed no

dispute regarding their creation. On the same day, Tehsildar

forwarded the proposal to the District Collector (Land Records),

Barmer.

5. On 24.12.2020 and 29.12.2020, one Amarram and Badli

Kunwar, wife of Sagat Singh, executed affidavits that they agree

to donate the land for proposed Revenue Villages, namely

Amargarh and Sagatsar.

2

6. The State Government, in exercise of the powers under

Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter,

referred to as the ‘the Act’) issued a notification on 31.12.2020

and created several new Revenue Villages. In the said

notification, Amargarh and Sagatsar from Meghwalo Ki Dhani,

Revenue Village Sohda, Patwar Mandal Sohda, District Barmer,

were notified as separate Revenue Villages. Consequent thereto,

the District Collector on 14.01.2021 issued an order specifying

the area and population of the newly constituted Revenue

Villages.

7. On 10.01.2025, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj

Department, Government of Rajasthan, issued directions for

reorganization, re-demarcation and creation of the new Gram

Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis, authorising the District

Collectors to act under Sections 9, 10 and 101 of Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. In furtherance thereof, a public notice

dated 07.04.2025, was issued inviting objections. An objection

dated 21.04.2025 was submitted by villagers of Meghwalo ki

Dhani, asserting that the names of new Revenue Villages, namely

‘Amargarh’ and ‘Sagatsar’ were derived from the names of

individuals.

3

8. The appellants approached the High Court by filing a Writ

Petition challenging the validity of the notification dated

31.12.2020, insofar as it related to the creation of Revenue

Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar.

9. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 11.07.2025,

held that the names of Revenue Villages were derived from the

names of individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh, who

had also agreed to donate the land. The learned Single Judge by

placing reliance on two Single Bench decisions of the High Court

in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan1 and Joga Ram & Anr. v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.2, quashed the notification dated

31.12.2020 qua the Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and

Sagatsar. The learned Single Judge granted the liberty to rename

the Revenue Villages in accordance with law.

10. Being aggrieved, respondent nos. 6 to 9, though not parties

to the Writ Petition, preferred an appeal along with an application

for leave to appeal. The Division Bench by the impugned order

dated 05.08.2025, inter alia held that the benefit of decisions in

1 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3470/2025) decided on 18.02.2025 2 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7275/2025) decided on 08.05.2025 4 Moola Ram and Joga Ram (supra) could not be extended to

cases where the process was not pending at the relevant time.

The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single

Judge and allowed the appeal. In the aforesaid factual backdrop,

this appeal arises for our consideration.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

Division Bench erred in overlooking the fact that the names of

Revenue Villages in question were clearly based on the names of

individuals, in direct violation of circular dated 20.08.2009,

issued by the State Government. It is, therefore, contended that

the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued

that the statutory procedure prescribed for the creation of

Revenue Villages had been followed and that the circular dated

20.08.2009 was merely directory. It is urged that settled issues

ought not to be reopened retrospectively.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 9, while

adopting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

State Government, urged that the appellants lack locus standi

and the notification dated 31.12.2020, does not cause any legal

5 injury to them. It is submitted that the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

14. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. Section 16 of the Act,

empowers the State Government to create, abolish or alter

divisions etc. Section 16 of the Act is extracted below for the

facility of reference: -

“Section 16: Power to create, abolish or alter divisions etc.-

The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette-

(a) create new or abolish existing division districts, sub-districts, sub-divisions, tehsils and sub-tehsils, villages, and

(b) alter the limits of any of them.”

15. The Revenue Department of the State Government issued a

comprehensive circular on 20.08.2009, laying down the criteria

for declaring a new Revenue Village. Clause 4 of the aforesaid

Circular, which is relevant for this Appeal, reads as under: -

“4. While proposing the new Revenue Village, a proposal for its name shall also be forwarded. While deciding the name, it shall be ensured that it is not based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste. As far as possible, the name of the village shall be proposed with general consensus.”

6 Thus, Clause 4 of the Circular mandates that the name of a

Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion, caste

or sub-caste, and the same shall be proposed with the general

consensus.

16. The aforesaid circular is in the nature of a policy decision.

Clause 4 of the circular has been incorporated with an object to

maintain communal harmony. It is well settled in law that a

policy decision though executive in nature binds the Government,

and the Government cannot act contrary thereto, unless the

policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action taken in

derogation of such a policy, without amendment or valid

justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India3.

17. Admittedly, the names of the Revenue Villages, namely

Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the names of the

individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. The notification

dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in contravention of Clause 4 of

3 Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 752, Home Secy., U.T. of Chandigarh & Anr. v. Darshjit Singh Grewal & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 25, and State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117.

7 the Circular dated 20.08.2009. The State Government cannot be

permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which

binds it. Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the

impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it pertains to

Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar. The Division

Bench failed to consider this material aspect and erred in limiting

its consideration only to the applicability of earlier decisions in

Moola Ram and Joga Ram (supra). In any case, the lis pending

before a Court is required to be adjudicated on merits.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment

dated 05.08.2025, passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.1055/2025 is quashed and set aside. The order dated

11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition no. 12422/2025 is restored.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

....…………………J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

…………………….J. [ALOK ARADHE] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 19, 2025.

8