New Delhi: The Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed that the Rajasthan government acted in contravention of its established policy by designating new revenue villages after private individuals. In a significant ruling, the apex court restored a Single Judge's order that had previously quashed such notifications, thereby overturning a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The decision came in an appeal filed by residents of village Sohda in Barmer district.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal, concluding that the creation of revenue villages “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” violated a critical state policy aimed at preventing communal disharmony.
The controversy originated from a December 31, 2020 notification issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This notification led to the creation of several new revenue villages, including Amargarh and Sagatsar, carved out from Meghwalo Ki Dhani within village Sohda. While initial reports, including a Tehsildar's certification, indicated compliance with all requirements and the execution of affidavits for land donations, objections surfaced in 2025 during a gram panchayat reorganization exercise. These objections specifically highlighted that “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were named after individuals, Amarram and Sagat Singh, respectively.
The High Court's Single Judge, on July 11, 2025, found merit in these objections. The judge concluded that the naming of the villages directly contravened a State Government circular dated August 20, 2009. This circular explicitly prohibits the naming of revenue villages after any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste, mandating adherence to this policy to foster communal harmony. Consequently, the Single Judge quashed the notification pertaining to Amargarh and Sagatsar, permitting their renaming.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court, on August 5, 2025, overturned the Single Judge's decision. The Division Bench's reasoning hinged on the premise that the benefits of earlier judgments could not be extended as the village creation process was deemed complete.
The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, sharply criticized the Division Bench for erroneously disregarding the binding nature of the 2009 circular. The Court underscored that government policy decisions are obligatory and cannot be violated without a lawful amendment or withdrawal. It stressed that any action taken contrary to such established policy is inherently arbitrary and constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
The apex court confirmed that the villages “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were indeed named after individuals who had donated land, thereby directly contravening the express provisions of the 2009 circular. It firmly rejected the Division Bench's rationale, asserting that pending legal disputes must be adjudicated on their merits, and the State cannot justify illegal actions by invoking the argument of finality.
In its final pronouncement, the Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench judgment of August 5, 2025, and reinstated the Single Judge's order of July 11, 2025, thereby solidifying the principle that government bodies must adhere to their own established policies.
Case: Bhika Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1247