SC quashes govt order to create new villages in Rajasthan

The Supreme Court annulled a Rajasthan notification creating new revenue villages named after individuals, violating state policy against such naming.

The Supreme Court on Friday quashed a 2020 Rajasthan government notification creating new revenue villages after finding that two of them were named after individuals, in violation of the state’s own policy that expressly bars such naming.

The notification was rejected after the court found two of the villages were named after individuals. (Sanjay Sharma)

A bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that the state government could not act in contravention of a binding executive policy framed by it, and that any such action would be arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“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,” said the bench.

The case arose from the creation of four new revenue villages in Barmer district pursuant to a proposal by the Gram Panchayat of Sohda village. Acting under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the state government issued a notification on December 31, 2020, declaring four new revenue villages -- Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani, Sagatsar, Amargarh and Hemnagar, carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani in revenue village Sohda.

Prior to the notification, the Tehsildar, Gida (Land Records), Barmer, issued certificates stating that he had personally verified all aspects relating to the formation of the new villages and certified that they were not associated with any individual, religion, caste or community. Affidavits were also executed by Amarram and Badli Kunwar, wife of Sagat Singh, agreeing to donate land for the proposed revenue villages of Amargarh and Sagatsar. The district collector later issued orders specifying the area and population of the newly constituted revenue villages.

In April 2025, during a process initiated by the Rajasthan government for reorganisation and creation of new gram panchayats, villagers objected to the names of Amargarh and Sagatsar, claiming that the names were derived from individuals who had donated land.

Residents of Sohda village approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the 2020 notification, contending that naming revenue villages after individuals violated a 2009 government circular.

A single judge of the high court accepted the challenge and quashed the notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar, holding that their names were clearly derived from Amarram and Sagat Singh. The court relied on earlier decisions that had invalidated village names derived from individuals and granted liberty to the State to rename the villages in accordance with law.

However, a division bench of the high court later set aside the single judge’s order, holding that the benefit of earlier judgments could not be extended retrospectively where the naming process had already concluded.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found the division bench’s approach to be flawed. The bench examined the revenue department’s August 2009 circular, which lays down criteria for declaring new revenue villages. Clause 4 of the circular mandates that while deciding the name of a revenue village, it must be ensured that it is not based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste, and that the name should be proposed, as far as possible, with general consensus.

Describing the circular as a policy decision binding on the government, the bench held that executive policies cannot be ignored unless they are 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 India,” it said.

Rejecting the state’s argument that the circular was merely directory, the bench underlined that the object of the policy was to maintain communal harmony, and therefore it could not be treated lightly.

The court also noted that it was undisputed that the names Amargarh and Sagatsar were derived from individuals -- Amarram and Sagat Singh, who had donated land for the villages. This, it held, was in clear breach of Clause 4 of the 2009 circular.

The Supreme Court set aside the high court division bench judgment, and restored the single judge’s order quashing the notification insofar as it related to the two villages.