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
Post a Comment