Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Joga Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:22307]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7275/2025
1. Joga Ram S/o Shri Dala Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Bankaniyonka Bas, Gram Panchayat Magne Ki
Dhani, Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
2. Swaroopa Ram S/o Shri Tulsa Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Bankaniyonka Bas, Gram Panchayat Magne Ki
Dhani, Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Group-1), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
(Raj.).
3. The District Collector (Land Records), Barmer (Raj.).
4. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Tehsil Barmer Rural,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG assisted by Mr.
Yogesh Sharma
Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/05/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged the circulars dated 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 issued
by the State authorities in relation to creation of new revenue
village and naming the newly created villages.
2. Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that various persons had filed writ petitions laying challenge to
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (2 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
creation of revenue village in name of a particular person, caste,
sub-caste or religion, which have been allowed by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed in
the bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3470/2025 : Moola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by
observing thus:-
"16. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is a
purpose and intention to incorporate clause 4 in the
terms that no particular person, caste, sub-caste or
religion should be given undue advantage disturbing
the communal harmony in the society.
17. As it has been noted that the proposal sent to the
State Government was in utter violation of circular
dated 20.8.2009, the Collector, Jodhpur vide his letter
dated 10.2.2025 had taken note of the same and
issued guidelines for sending the proposal in
conformity with the condition/clause mentioned in
circular dated 20.8.2009. On the similar line, the
Board of Revenue has also issued letter dated
10.2.2025 to District Collector, Barmer. The State
Government has also received some representations
wherein the same grievances were raised. Taking into
consideration all these facts, the State Government
brought amendment in circular dated 20.8.2009.
Since the learned AAG has already submitted before
this Court that the State Government has issued an
amendment in clause 4 by circular dated 17.2.2025,
this Court is of the considered view that the
notification issued by the State Government dated
20.1.2025 is in violation of clause 4 of the circular
dated 20.8.2009. Similarly, all such notifications akin
to notification dated 20.1.2025 issued by the State
Government, which are subject matter in other writ
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (3 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
petitions filed before this Court are also dehors the
provisions of clause 4 of circular dated 20.8.2009.
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."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide
aforesaid order, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing
the respective notification challenged therein had clearly held that
not only the cases involved in said batch of petitions, even new
revenue villages in which the notification(s) have not been issued
and the same are in process, shall be governed by the circulars
dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel argued that in order to overcome the
adjudication made by the above referred judgment, the State
Government has issued circular dated 28.02.2025 followed by
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (4 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
another circular dated 06.03.2025, in such a manner that
requirement of not naming the revenue village in the name of
particular person, caste or sub-caste etc., has been done away
with and consequentially, the respondents have been made free to
create and name any revenue village as per choice and wishes of
the politically influential persons.
5. Inviting Court's attention towards clause (4) of the circular
dated 06.03.2025, learned counsel argued that since the
stipulation made in para No.4 of circular dated 20.08.2009 has
been removed, it gives an unbridled power to the respondents to
create revenue village in whatever name they deem fit.
6. He further submitted that as per circular dated 17.02.2025,
it was obligatory upon the respondent-State to take consent of
Gram Panchayat (unanimus) i.e. no objection of Panchayat of the
concerned area but such condition too has been removed or
altered.
7. Learned counsel argued that circular dated 06.03.2025 is
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, more particularly, to the
judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Moola Ram (supra).
8. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand
submitted that the creation of new revenue village which are 100s
in number, is an exercise which needs to be taken by the
respondents in order to ensure overall development of the State.
He argued that past experience of the State shows that it
becomes difficult to create revenue village as consent of the
villagers or Gram Sabha and concerned Gram Panchayat is
impossible to get.
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (5 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
9. It was argued that the respondents also find it difficult to
choose or give name for newly created revenue village because
whatever name they choose, the public/villagers are not
agreeable, hence, the circular dated 06.03.2025 has been issued
in order to smoothen the creation of new villages.
10. He argued that circular dated 06.03.2025 is neither contrary
to any statue nor does it affect petitioner's fundamental rights,
therefore, not warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Before dilating upon circular dated 06.03.2025, it will be apt
to go through and bear in mind para No.16 to para No.19 of the
judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed in the case of Moola Ram
(supra), which unequivocally provides that there is a purpose or
intention of incorporating clause (4) in the circular dated
20.08.2009.
13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that
creation of revenue village in particular name, caste, sub-caste or
religion or in name of one's family members is arbitrary. While
disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court has directed the
State Government to undertake exercise of creation of revenue
village afresh, while adhering to the guidelines given in circulars
dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025.
14. The observations made by the High Court in the case of
Moola Ram (supra) are binding upon the State Government. The
respondents have not only issued another circular dated
28.02.2025 and substituted para No.4 of the circular dated
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (6 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
20.08.2009 but have also completely changed the circular by way
subsequent circular dated 06.03.2025.
15. So far as concern of the State Government of obtaining
common consensus, rather unanimity of the residents of village
and Gram Panchayat is concerned, the same can well be
understood. This Court is of the view that in case, where all the
stakeholders do not agree with the particular name, the Gram
Panchayat or the Aam Sabha can discuss the names given in
proposal however, in such case, if unanimity is absent, the Aam
Sabha can adopt resolution indicating or suggesting two or three
names which can be acted upon by the State.
16. However, so far as name of village in the name of a
particular person, religion, caste or sub-caste is concerned, such
condition is necessary and mandatory to maintain the societal
harmony, as held by this Court in the case of Moola Ram (supra).
According to this Court, circulars dated 28.02.2025 so also
06.03.2025 are violative of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 and
gives unbridled and arbitrary power to the respondents to fix the
name of the revenue village in the name of their favourite
persons.
17. Deletion of following expression from circular dated
17.02.2025 is illegal and arbitrary:-
Þ;Fkk laHko izLrkfor xzke dk uke] O;fDr] /keZ] tkfr vFkok mitkfr ds
vk/kkj ij ugha gksAß
18. Because, in the case of Moola Ram (supra), the High Court
has clearly held that creating revenue village in name of a
particular person, caste, sub-caste, God etc., is illegal and
[2025:RJ-JD:22307] (7 of 7) [CW-7275/2025]
arbitrary. State's action of deleting aforesaid part of the circular
dated 17.02.2025 is in teeth of said judgment.
19. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
554-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
