Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Government Notification Creating New Revenue Villages

Introduction

In a significant ruling reinforcing the binding nature of executive policies, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a 2020 Rajasthan government notification creating new revenue villages in Barmer district, after finding that two villages were named after individuals, in direct violation of the State’s own policy. The Court held that such action was arbitrary and unconstitutional, offending Article 14 of the Constitution.


Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the Rajasthan government’s decision to create four new revenue villages

  • Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani

  • Sagatsar

  • Amargarh

  • Hemnagar

These villages were carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani, located within the revenue village of Sohda in Barmer district, pursuant to a proposal by the Gram Panchayat of Sohda.

Acting under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the State issued a notification dated 31 December 2020, formally declaring the new revenue villages.


Administrative Process Prior to Notification

Before issuing the notification:

  • The Tehsildar, Gida (Land Records), Barmer issued certificates stating that he had personally verified the proposal and confirmed that the names of the proposed villages were not associated with any individual, religion, caste, or community.

  • Affidavits were executed by Amarram and Badli Kunwar, wife of Sagat Singh, agreeing to donate land for the formation of the villages named Amargarh and Sagatsar.

  • The District Collector subsequently issued orders specifying the area and population of the newly constituted villages.


Objections Raised by Villagers

In April 2025, during a state-led exercise for reorganisation and creation of new gram panchayats, residents of Sohda village raised objections, contending that:

  • The names Amargarh and Sagatsar were derived from individuals who had donated land.

  • Such naming violated a 2009 circular issued by the Rajasthan Revenue Department, which explicitly barred naming revenue villages after individuals.


Proceedings Before the Rajasthan High Court

Single Judge Decision

Residents approached the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the 2020 notification. A single judge accepted the plea and quashed the notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar, holding that:

  • The village names were clearly derived from Amarram and Sagat Singh.

  • Naming revenue villages after individuals violated the 2009 government circular.

  • The State was granted liberty to rename the villages in accordance with law.

Division Bench Reversal

The State appealed, and a division bench of the High Court set aside the single judge’s order, holding that:

  • Earlier judgments invalidating such naming could not be applied retrospectively.

  • Since the naming process had already concluded, the challenge was not sustainable.


Supreme Court’s Intervention

Allowing the appeal, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe found the division bench’s reasoning to be legally flawed and restored the single judge’s decision.


Key Findings of the Supreme Court

Executive Policy Is Binding on the State

The Court examined the Revenue Department circular dated August 2009, which lays down criteria for the creation of new revenue villages.

Clause 4 of the circular mandates that:

  • The name of a revenue village must not be based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste.

  • Names should be proposed, as far as possible, with general consensus, to preserve social harmony.

The Court held that this circular constitutes a policy decision binding on the government.

“The State Government cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it.”


Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution

The Court ruled that any action taken in derogation of a binding executive policy, without lawful amendment or withdrawal, is:

  • Arbitrary

  • Unreasonable

  • Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

The Court emphasised that executive discretion cannot be exercised inconsistently or selectively.


Naming After Individuals Is Impermissible

It was undisputed that:

  • Amargarh was derived from Amarram

  • Sagatsar was derived from Sagat Singh

Both individuals had donated land for village formation. The Court held that this directly breached Clause 4 of the 2009 circular, regardless of the intent behind the naming.


Circular Not Merely Directory

Rejecting the State’s argument that the 2009 circular was merely directory, the Court observed that:

  • The policy’s objective was to maintain communal harmony.

  • Such policies cannot be treated casually or ignored at administrative convenience.


Statutory Framework Involved

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956

  • Section 16 empowers the State government to declare and constitute new revenue villages.

  • However, such power must be exercised in accordance with law and policy.


Constitutional Provisions Applied

Article 14 – Right to Equality

  • Prohibits arbitrariness in State action.

  • Requires consistency, fairness, and adherence to declared policy.


Judicial Principles and Precedents Applied

While not naming specific cases, the judgment is rooted in settled jurisprudence that:

  • Executive policies bind the government unless lawfully amended or withdrawn.

  • Arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14.

  • Administrative actions contrary to declared policy lack legal sanctity.

These principles have been consistently affirmed in cases such as:

  • Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India

  • Union of India v. N.K. Private Ltd.

  • State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga


Final Outcome

The Supreme Court:

  • Set aside the Rajasthan High Court division bench judgment

  • Restored the single judge’s order

  • Quashed the 2020 notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar

  • Affirmed that the State may rename the villages strictly in accordance with law and policy


Conclusion

The ruling is a strong reminder that governmental power is not unfettered, even in administrative matters such as naming villages. When a State frames a policy to promote social neutrality and communal harmony, it cannot act in violation of its own norms.

By enforcing policy discipline and constitutional equality, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that executive convenience cannot override constitutional governance.

Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse