State Policy Barring Person‑Based Village Names Holds; High Court Order Restored and Notification Quashed

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe heard an appeal against a Division Bench order of the Rajasthan High Court that had set aside a Single Judge's quashing of a State notification creating two Revenue Villages. The appeal concerned the validity of the notification dated 31.12.2020 which created the Revenue Villages Amargarh and Sagatsar carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Sohda, Barmer, and whether those names contravened a State circular prohibiting names based on any person, religion, caste or sub‑caste.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order dated 05.08.2025 and restored the Single Judge's order dated 11.07.2025 quashing the notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar. The Court held that the State's circular of 20.08.2009 constituted a policy decision that bound the Government and that action taken in contravention of that policy, without lawful amendment or valid justification, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court noted that the impugned notification named the villages after individuals who had executed affidavits consenting to donate land and that this was in direct conflict with Clause 4 of the 2009 circular which required that "it shall be ensured that it is not based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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nature binds the Government, and the Government cannot act contrary thereto, unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn.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 Constitution of India.” The Court concluded that "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."

Background The dispute arose after the Gram Panchayat of Sohda proposed creation of several new Revenue Villages and the Tehsildar of Gida issued certificates on 24.12.2020 verifying the proposals and specifying headquarters for Sagatsar and Amargarh. Affidavits of donation dated 24.12.2020 and 29.12.2020 by Amarram and Badli Kunwar (wife of Sagat Singh) indicated consent to donate land for Amargarh and Sagatsar. The State issued a notification on 31.12.2020 under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 creating the new Revenue Villages, and the District Collector later specified their area and population.

Villagers of Meghwalo Ki Dhani objected that the proposed names derived from individuals. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification as contrary to the Revenue Department circular dated 20.08.2009, specifically Clause 4 which required that a proposed village name "shall not be based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste" and be proposed with general consensus. The Single Judge quashed the notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar and granted liberty to rename the villages. Respondents 6 to 9, though not original parties to the writ, appealed; the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order on a ground that the precedents relied upon did not apply where the process was not pending. The State contended that statutory procedure under Section 16 had been followed and treated the 2009 circular as directory. The Supreme Court analysed Section 16 and the 2009 circular, observed that Clause 4 aimed to maintain communal harmony, applied settled law that executive policy binds the Government, and found the notification to be in contravention of the circular. The Division Bench was found to have overlooked this material aspect. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench order, restored the Single Judge's order dated 11.07.2025, and allowed the appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1482 (SLP (C) No. 27965 of 2025) Case Title: Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment