Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1482
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
1
in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Joga Ram & Anr . v.
2
State of Rajasthan & Ors . , 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
3
Constitution of India .
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1482
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
1
in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Joga Ram & Anr . v.
2
State of Rajasthan & Ors . , 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
3
Constitution of India .
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