Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1055/2025
1. Arjun Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Sohda, District Beawar, Rajasthan
2. Nema Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Sohda, District Barmer, Rajasthan
3. Surta Ram S/o Sola Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Sohda, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. Tiku Ram S/o Ameda Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Sohda, Meghwalon Ki Dhani, District Beawar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur
2. The District Collector, Balotra (Raj.)
3. The District Collector, Barmer (Raj.)
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Balotra
5. Tehsildar, Gida District, Balotra (Raj.)
6. Bhikha Ram S/o Sh. Kalla Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Old Village Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Sohara, Tehsil Gida,
District Balotra (Raj.)
7. Khema Ram S/o Sh. Goverdhan Ram, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Old Village Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Sohara, Tehsil
Gida, District Balotra (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with
Mr. Ravindra Jala
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with
Mr. Aidan Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
05/08/2025
1. The appellants, who were not parties in the writ petition
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12422/2025), wherein the impugned
order dated 11.07.2025 was passed by the learned Single Bench
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
of this Hon'ble Court, have preferred the Civil Leave to Appeal,
claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
leave to appeal may kindly be allowed and the present
appellants may kindly be allowed to pursue the Special
Appeal filed by them against the order dated 11.07.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP
No.12422/2025.
Any other order favourable to the appellants may also
be passed."
2. For the reasons stated in the application seeking leave to
appeal, the same is allowed, and accordingly, leave to file appeal
is granted.
3. Heard the special appeal finally with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
4. The present controversy arose when the Notification dated
31.12.2020 was issued by the State Government, whereby the
original revenue village, namely Meghawalo Ki Dhani, Gram
Panchayat Sohda, Tehsil Gida, District Balotra has been sought to
be divided, enabling creation of two separate revenue villages, i.e.
Revenue Villages 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar', which is the subject
matter of the adjudication in the present case. The challenge, in
particular, as laid by the writ petitioners (private respondents
herein) in the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12422/2025) before the learned Single Bench was particularly,
with regard to the name part of the said two Revenue Villages i.e.
Amargarh and Sagatsar, whereupon the learned Single Bench of
this Hon'ble Court passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2025,
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
allowing the said writ petition; relevant portion of the impugned
order dated 11.07.2025 reads as under:
"2. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
name of the revenue village 'Amargarh' has been fixed on
the basis of one 'Amra Ram', who had agreed to hand over
three bighas of land in the said revenue village. Similarly,
the name of revenue village 'Sagatsar' is based upon the
name of 'Sagat Singh', being the husband of the donor,
Badli Kanwar.
3. Following the reasoning given in the cases of Moola
Ram and Joga Ram (supra), the present writ petition is
allowed.
4. The notification dated 31.12.2020 qua creation of
revenue Villages namely - 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar' out of
original Village Meghawalo Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat
Sohda, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer is hereby quashed and
set aside, as the names of these villages are indicative of
particular persons.
5. The respondent - State shall, however, be free to
create revenue village(s) in any other name in accordance
with law, more particularly in light of what has been
observed in the case of Joga Ram (supra).
6. It is hereby made clear that the quashment of the
notification dated 31.12.2020 qua the subject revenue
villages shall not require the State to initiate the
proceedings for the creation of revenue village(s) afresh;
only the proceedings related to the change in name shall
be undertaken."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to
the impugned order, which has been passed while relying upon the
judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Moola
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3470/2025) & other connected matters decided on 18.02.2025
and Joga Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
Writ No.7275/2025) decided on 08.05.2025. Operative portions of
the said judgments are reproduced as under:-
Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan:
"18. In view of the discussion made above, the present
writ petition and the batch of writ petitions are disposed of
by quashing and setting aside the notification dated
20.1.2025 and other similar notifications issued by the
State Government. The State Government is directed to
initiate fresh process for creation of new revenue villages
adhering to the parameters/guidelines mentioned in the
circulars dated 20.8.2009 and 17.2.2025.
19. The directions issued hereinabove shall also be made
applicable for the cases in which the notification for
creation of new villages has not been issued and the same
are in process.
20. The order passed by this Court will be made applicable
only qua the petitioners, who have approached this Court.
21. All the pending interlocutory applications as well as
the stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
22. Office is directed to keep photostat copy of this order
in each of the aforesaid writ petitions."
Joga Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
"20. The State is directed to create revenue villages while
keeping the spirit and mandate of the judgment in the
case of Moola Ram (supra) so also above quoted part of
the circular dated 17.02.2025. It is therefore, ordered
that henceforth, no revenue village shall be created in the
name of a particular person, religion, caste and sub-
caste.
21. The directions given above shall apply in future so
also to cases which are in pipeline or are pending
consideration of this Court to the extent of creating
revenue village in name of a particular person, religion,
caste, sub-caste etc.
22. Stay application so also interlocutory application(s)
stand disposed of, accordingly."
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
5.1. Learned counsel makes a limited submission that this
Hon'ble Court, vide the afore-quoted judgments, has itself created
an embargo for re-opening of old controversies, in regard to which
the relief could not be extended. He submits that in the case of
Moola Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Court had categorically held that
the directions shall be applicable in the cases, in which notification
for creation of the new villages has not been issued and the same
is in process. He further submits that in Joga Ram (supra), it was
clarified by the Hon'ble Court that the directions given shall apply
in future so also to cases, which are in pipeline or are pending
consideration of the Court to the extent of creating revenue village
in the name of a particular person, religion, caste and sub-caste.
5.2. Learned counsel also submits that issue raised in the present
case had already attained finality way back in the year 2020 itself,
as neither any notification had long been issued and nor any such
notification was under challenge at the time of when the aforesaid
cases i.e. Moola Ram (supra) and Joga Ram (supra) were
adjudicated by the Hon'ble Court. Moreover, the private
respondents (writ petitioners) had not approached the Hon'ble
Court before delivery of verdicts in Moola Ram (supra) and Joga
Ram (supra). He further submits that the private respondents
could still have been entitled for the relief(s) under the judgment
passed in Joga Ram (supra), if the process was in pipeline or was
pending consideration before the Court, which is not so in the
instant case.
5.3. Learned counsel further submits that even the limited
intervention as made in the impugned order is prejudicial to the
rights of the appellants and other villagers as the proposals for the
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
revenue villages in question with their impugned names are at the
final stage, whereas on count of the impugned order, the said
process would come to an indefinite halt, which in the given
circumstances, is not permissible under the law, more particularly,
in view of the fact that even such limited intervention would likely
to open a Pandora's Box, and each and every notification as
involved in the present case, would become the subject matter of
adjudication before the Hon'ble Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private
respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the appellants, submits that once the principle of law is
laid down, then it ought to equally apply to all concerned and
merely because the private respondents have not approached the
Hon'ble Court in time, that too, because it came to their
knowledge belatedly that such notification has been given effect
to, the private respondents cannot be deprived of their rights in
accordance with the proposition of law arising out of the
judgments rendered in Moola Ram (supra) and Joga Ram (supra).
6.1. As per learned counsel, moreover, the learned Single Judge
vide the impugned order, has made an intervention to the limited
extent of quashing the Notification dated 31.12.2020 qua creation
of revenue villages namely, Amargarh and Sagatsar, on count of
their names being indicative of particular persons, and liberty has
been granted to the State to create revenue villages in question
with any other name(s), in accordance with the observations
made in Joga Ram (supra).
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that applying the ratio
of the judgments rendered in Moola Ram (supra) and Joga Ram
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
(supra) retrospectively beyond the contours which has created an
embargo for opening/reopening of old dispute pertaining to name
and creation of the revenue villages, would open a pandora's box.
Therefore, retrospective application of the judgments in Joga Ram
(supra) and Moola Ram (supra) is not warranted in the present
case beyond the terms, which have themselves been settled in
both the said judgments by the Hon'ble Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments rendered in Joga
Ram (supra) and Moola Ram (supra).
9. This Court is in full agreement with the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State, that the learned Single Bench itself was aware and
conscious that reopening of issue pertaining to village names
retrospectively, may not be conducive to the present
circumstances where name of a village becomes highly
contentious and remain bone of contention for a long time.
Therefore, the embargo given in Joga Ram (supra) and Moola
Ram (supra) are comprehensive in its own terms to give away the
benefits of such judgments, rather limiting the extension of
benefits thereof, consciously, looking into widespread ramifications
and likelihood of opening of pandora's box, in regard to such
highly contentious issues. Thus, the benefits of the said judgments
cannot be given qua the processes which are neither in the
pipeline nor disputes in regard thereto are pending before the
Court at the time rendering of the said judgments, and the cases
where the notification has been issued prior thereto.
[2025:RJ-JD:34584-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-1055/2025]
10. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that the present case
does not fall within the scope of the judgments rendered in Joga
Ram (supra) and Moola Ram (supra).
11. Thus, in light of the above, the present appeal is allowed,
while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench, only to the
extent of quashment of the Notification dated 31.12.2020 qua
creation of revenue villages in question i.e. Revenue Villages
'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar'. All pending applications stand disposed
of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
123-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
