Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 September, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:42407]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2025
1. Mala Ram S/o Shri Asu Ram Jakhar, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Hatundi, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Puna Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Harkanada, Village Hatundi, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Revenue (Gr.-I), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, Department Of Revenue (Gr-I),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
4. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Registrar.
5. District Collector, (Land Record), Jodhpur.
6. Sub Divisional Officer, Baori, Jodhpur.
7. Tehsildar (Revenue), Baori, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13956/2025
1. Dipa Ram S/o Shri Gulaba Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/
o Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
2. Kheta Ram S/o Shri Haru Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/
o Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
3. Ratna Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Uda Ram Meghwal, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh,
District Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. Maga Ram S/o Shri Achala Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (2 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
5. Ghewar Ram S/o Shri Khushala Ram, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Shera Ram S/o Shri Uda Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
7. Jasa Ram S/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village Somesar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary,
Revenue Department (Group-1), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The District Collector (Land Records), Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Panchayat Samiti Shergarh,
District Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. The Gram Panchayat, Somesar, Panchayat Samiti
Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.), Through The Village
Development Officer.
6. The Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Somesar, Panchayat
Samiti Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6576/2025
1. Laxman Choudhary S/o Ranaram, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya,
District Barmer.
2. Chagana Ram S/o Ghamanda Ram, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya,
District Barmer.
3. Hanuman Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/
o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, District
Barmer.
4. Pira Ram S/o Kirpa Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, District
Barmer.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (3 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
5. Lumba Ram S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, District
Barmer.
6. Narpat Lal S/o Bala Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, Harkhali
District Barmer.
7. Navla Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Naya Batadu, Baytoo District Barmer.
8. Dhanna Ram S/o Ghamanda Ram, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya,
District Barmer.
9. Hasta Ram S/o Ammeda Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/
o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, District
Barmer.
10. Chutara Ram S/o Bagata Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/
o Naya Batadu, Gram Panchayat Singodiya, District
Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue
Department, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Division Batadu District
Barmer.
4. Tehsildar, Batadu District Barmer.
5. Gram Panchayat, Through Sarpanch, Office At Gram
Panchayat, Singodiya, Tehsil- Batadu, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6918/2025
Gram Panchayat Bhimda, Through Sarpanch/administrator
Kishan Lal Bheemra, Age 34 Years, R/o Bhimda, Panchayat
Samiti Bayetu, Tehsil Bayetu, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (4 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue
Department, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Division Bayetu District
Barmer.
4. Tehsildar, Batadu, District Barmer.
5. Kesraram, The Then Patwari, Tehsil Batadu District
Barmer, Presently Working As Patwari, Patwar Mandal
Bamnor, Tehsil Dhanau.
6. Jaisa Ram S/o Bharu Ram, Aged About 63 years R/o
Choukhoyon Katala, Bheemra, Bhimda, Dist- Barmer.
7. Sona Ram S/o Vagta Ram, Aged About 59 years R/o Sau
Indony Ki Dhani, Bhimda, District Barmer.
8. Deraj Ram S/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 41 R/o Sau Ki
Dhani, Bhimda, District- Barmer.
9. Kala Ram S/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 44 years R/o Sau
Ki Dhani, Bhimda, District- Barmer.
10. Lakha Ram S/o Sama Ram, Aged About 29 years R/o
Bhimda, District- Barmer.
11. Rana Ram S/o Gunasa Ram, Aged About 61 years R/o
Bhimda, District - Barmer.
12. Jagdish Kumar S/o Rana Ram, Aged About 31 years R/o
Bhimda, District- Barmer.
13. Oma Ram S/o Naru Ram, Aged About 29 years R/o
Bhimda, District - Barmer.
14. Joga Ram S/o Naru Ram, Aged About 34 R/o Bhimda,
District Barmer.
15. Naru Ram S/o Ganesha Ram, Aged About 57 years R/o
Bhimda, District Baremer.
16. Ramesh Kumar S/o Rana Ram, Aged About 24 years R/o
Bhimda, District - Barmer.
17. Rugnath Ram S/o Sona Ram Aged About 30 years R/o
Bhimda, District - Barmer.
18. Shiv Lal S/o Sona Ram Aged About 39 years R/o
Bhimda, District - Barmer.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (5 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15730/2025
Ganpat Singh S/o Sh. Keshar Singh, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Khetalwa Marg, Village Surana, Tehsil Sayala, District
Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Revenue
(Group-1), Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
5. The District Collector, Jalore.
6. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sayala, District Jalore.
7. Tehsildar, Sayala, District Jalore.
8. The Gram Vikas Adhikari (Village Development
Officer), Gram Panchayat Surana, Tehsil Sayala,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9377/2025
1. Ibrahim Khan S/o Sada Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Talbaniyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sindhari, Lolawa,
Balotra.
2. Ramjan Khan S/o Gula Khan, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Talbaniyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sindhari, Lolawa,
Balotra.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Collector, Balotra.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindhari, Balotra.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (6 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
4. Tehsildar, Sindhari Balotra.
5. The Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-
Payla Kala, Balotra.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9078/2025
Dinu Khan S/o Kasam Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village Talbaniya Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sindhari, Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Collector, Balotra.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindhari, Balotra.
4. Tehsildar, Sindhari Balotra.
5. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat
Talbaniyon Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti-Payla Kala,
Balotra.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7702/2025
1. Mubarak Khan S/o Sh. Suban Khan, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Kasam Kha Ki Dhani, Village Riyan, Tehsil
Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
2. Allarakh S/o Sh. Amu Khan, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Kasam Kha Ki Dhani, Village Riyan, Tehsil Pipar
City, District Jodhpur.
3. Alam Khan S/o Sh. Mohammad Khan, Aged About
69 Years, R/o Kasam Kha Ki Dhani, Village Riyan,
Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
4. Ibu Khan S/o Sh. Aladin, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Kasam Kha Ki Dhani, Village Riyan, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur.
5. Iqabi S/o Sh. Gendu Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/
o Kasam Kha Ki Dhani, Village Riyan, Tehsil Pipar
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (7 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
City, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
Government, Revenue Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Jodhpur.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
4. Tehsildar, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Riyan, Panchayat Samiti
Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8623/2025
Ganga Singh S/o Bhanvar Singh, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of Solankiya Tala, District - Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue
(Group-I), Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The District Collector, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
3. Sub - Divisional Officer, Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rural) (Rajasthan).
4. Tehsildar (Land Record), Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Solankiya Tala,
Panchayat Samiti Shergarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10708/2025
1. Kewala Ram S/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road,
Barmer, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (8 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
2. Vilal Khan S/o Kabal Khan, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Shareef Khan S/o Usman Khan, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road,
Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. Jor Mohammad S/o Kamal Khan, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road,
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Divisional Commissioner, Barmer (Raj.).
3. The District Collector, Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
5. Gram Panchayat, Harsani, Through Its Sarpanch,
Office Of Gram Panchayat Samiti Harsani, Tehsil
Gadara Road, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. The Gram Vikas Adhikari, Village Harsani, Tehsil
Gadara Road, Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10713/2025
1. Mohan Ram S/o Sawai Ram, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road,
Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Dwarka Ram S/o Paru Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Lakha Ram S/o Paru Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (9 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
4. Manga Ram S/o Raga Ram, Aged About 72 Years,
R/o Village Harsani, Tehsil Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Divisional Commissioner, Barmer (Raj.).
3. The District Collector, Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadara Road, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
5. Gram Panchayat, Harsani, Through Its Sarpanch,
Office Of Gram Panchayat Samiti Harsani, Tehsil
Gadara Road, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. The Gram Vikas Adhikari, Village Harsani, Tehsil
Gadara Road, Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10892/2025
1. Dan Singh S/o Amedram, Aged About 39 Years,
Residents Of Old Village Meghwalon Ki Dhani,
Sohara Tehsil- Gida District Balotra (Raj.).
2. Tulsa Ram S/o Rana Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Residents Of Old Village Meghwalon Ki Dhani,
Sohara Tehsil- Gida District Balotra (Raj.).
3. Khema Ram S/o Naina Ram, Aged About 42
Years, Residents Of Old Village Meghwalon Ki
Dhani, Sohara Tehsil- Gida District Balotra (Raj.).
4. Pura Ram S/o Bala Ram, Aged About 61 Years,
Residents Of Old Village Meghwalon Ki Dhani,
Sohara Tehsil- Gida District Balotra (Raj.).
5. Haduman Ram S/o Bhoora Ram, Aged About 45
Years, Residents Of Old Village Meghwalon Ki
Dhani, Sohara Tehsil- Gida District Balotra (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (10 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal
Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The District Collector, Balotra (Raj.).
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Balotra.
4. Tehsildar, Gida District Balotra (Raj.)
5. Gram Panchayat, Sohada Panchayat Samiti Gida
Dis. Balotra Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14987/2025
1. Ashok S/o Kishana Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Ajit Nagar, Bawarli, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Deva Ram S/o Gunesha Ram, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Bhambhuon Ki Dhani, Bawarli, Balesar
Satta, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Hukma Ram S/o Gumna Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Kadela Ki Dhani, Bawarli, Balesar,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Jodhpur.
4. Gram Panchayat, Bawarli, Through Its Village
Development Officer.
5. Tehsildar, Balesar, District Jodhpur.
6. Patwari Balesar, District Jodhpur.
7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 10:17:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (11 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
Mr. Yashpal Khileree
Dr. Ashok Choudhary
Mr. Deepak Nehra
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ram Dayal Bhadu
Mr. Ram Dayal Dudy
Mr. C.R. Choudhary
Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Siddiqui
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Gaurav Ranka
Mr. Aidan Choudhary
Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. Sher Singh Rathore
Mr. Ram Niwas Haniya
Mr. Shailendra Gwala
Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/09/2025
REPORTABLE
1. The present batch of writ petitions involves dispute with
regard to creation of new Revenue Villages and naming of the
newly created villages.
2. This Court, before dealing with the common arguments as
raised before by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and respondents, deems it just and proper to summarize
grievances of the petitioners as canvased in each of the present
writ petitions.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (12 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2025-
3. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 25.07.2025 (Annex.11) whereby
the State Government has created new Revenue Villages namely
'Harkanada' and 'Deron Ki Dhani' from existing Revenue Village
'Hatundi'.
4. The petitioners alleged that the proposal for creating new
Revenue Villages was forwarded on 26.06.2025 without convening
a Gram Sabha meeting, as mandated under the provisions of the
Panchayati Raj Act and Rules. They further alleged that despite
the absence of available land for developing basic amenities, the
authorities proceeded in violation of State Government guidelines
laid down in circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 28.02.2025.
Furthermore, the petitioners alleged that the proposed village
Harkanada and Deron Ki Dhani has been named after a local
resident, Harka Ram, violating Clause 4 of the circulars dated
18.02.2025 and 20.08.2009.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13956/2025-
5. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 04.06.2025 (Annex.7) whereby
the State Government has created a new Revenue Village, namely
'Somesar Kalla', from the existing Revenue Village 'Somesar'.
6. The notification dated 04.06.2025 has been challenged on
the grounds that the State Authorities did not adhere to the
relevant guidelines and parameters outlined in the circulars issued
for the creation of new Revenue Villages. It has been contended
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (13 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
that no meeting of the Gram Sabha was convened in accordance
with the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules prior to
submitting the proposal for the new Revenue Village. Furthermore,
it was asserted that the newly created Revenue Village, Somesar
Kalla, does not satisfy the minimum population requirement of
250 villagers as prescribed in the guidelines.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6576/2025-
7. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure 6)
whereby the State Government has created new Revenue Villages,
namely 'Aadarsh Naya Singodiya', 'Batadu Dakshin' and
'Aadarsh Naya Batadu' from the existing Revenue Village,
namely 'Singodiya'.
8. The notification dated 19.03.2025 has been assailed on the
ground that the respondents have presented inflated numbers for
the residents of the newly formed villages, while these villages do
not meet the minimum population requirement of 150 villagers as
outlined in the relevant circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
17.02.2025. It is further alleged that the proposal for creation of
new Revenue Villages was forwarded by the State Authorities
without taking consent/convening a meeting of Gram Panchayat,
Singodiya, Baytu, District Barmer.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6918/2025-
9. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure 9)
whereby the State Government has created new Revenue Village,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (14 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
namely 'Ambedkar Nagar, Bhimda' from the existing Revenue
Village namely 'Bhimda'.
10. It has been alleged that before the creation of the new
Revenue Village, the general consent of the villagers of Gram
Panchayat, Bhimda was not obtained and that infact, the Gram
Panchayat, Bhimda, during its meeting dated 20.12.2024, rejected
the proposal for creating the new Revenue Village. Thus, the new
Revenue Village was created in blatant disregard and violation of
the parameters and guidelines prescribed for the creation of new
villages in the relevant circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
17.02.2025.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15730/2025-
11. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure 5)
whereby the State Government has created new Revenue Village,
namely 'Naya Surana' from the existing Revenue Village
'Surana'.
12. The writ petitioners have challenged the notification dated
04.06.2025, on the ground that the State Authorities failed to
obtain a NOC from the Gram Panchayat prior to creating the new
Revenue Village. It is further contended that no prior consultation,
consent, or resolution was sought from the Gram Panchayat,
Surana, in violation of the guidelines in the circular dated
20.08.2009.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (15 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9377/2025 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 9078/2025-
13. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the proceedings with regard to the creation of new
Revenue Villages, namely 'Keraliya Nada' and 'Kakdon Ki
Dhani'.
14. The writ petitioners have challenged the creation of new
Revenue Villages on the grounds that the proposals submitted by
the State Authorities were illegal and arbitrary; violating the
guidelines set forth in the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
17.02.2025. It is contended that these proposals were forwarded
without convening Gram Sabha meetings or obtaining the general
consent of the villagers. Furthermore, the naming of the proposed
new Revenue Villages is also alleged to be in violation of the
circular dated 17.02.2025, which prohibits naming villages after a
particular person, religion, caste, or sub caste.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7702/2025-
15. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure 7)
whereby the State Government has created new Revenue Village,
namely 'Chandpura' from the existing Revenue Village 'Riya'.
16. The writ petitioners have questioned the creation of the new
Revenue Village, Chandpura, primarily on the ground that it fails
to meet several criteria prescribed by the State for such creations.
These criteria include the minimum population requirement, the
required distance from the Gram Panchayat, and the availability of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (16 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
land reserved for public infrastructure development such as
schools, hospitals, and Panchayat Bhawan.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8623/2025-
17. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure 1)
whereby the State Government has created a new Revenue
Village, namely 'Phusa Nagar' from the existing Revenue Village
'Solankiya Tala'.
18. Questioning the validity and propriety of the notification
dated 26.03.2025, the petitioner in the present writ petition has
alleged that the proposal was sent and the decision with regard to
the same was taken without obtaining any general consensus
among the villagers. Furthermore, the petitioner has contended
that the new Revenue Village has been named after one Phoosa
Ram, who is the father of an influential political figure, which is in
utter disregard to the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10708/2025 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 10713/2025-
19. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the proceedings with regards to creation of new
Revenue Villages, namely 'Kishandasot Nagar' and 'Akheraj
Nagar' from the existing Revenue Village 'Harsani'.
20. The petitioners, who are residents of village Harsani, have
alleged through these writ petitions, that the State Authorities
manipulated the records of Gram Panchayat, Harsani, to submit
proposals for the creation of new Revenue Villages namely
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (17 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
Kishandasot Nagar and Akheraj Nagar. The petitioners contend
that these proposals were forwarded in direct violation of the
circulars dated 20.08.2009, 06.03.2025, and 17.02.2025.
Furthermore, no meeting of the Gram Sabha was convened on
05.04.2025 to discuss the creation of the Revenue Village named
Kishandasot Nagar and Akheraj Nagar, thereby negating any
question of the Gram Panchayat approving such a proposal. It is
also contended that the village Kishandasot Nagar has been
proposed in the name of a particular individual, which is against
the guidelines of the aforementioned circulars.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10892/2025-
21. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure 6)
whereby the State Government has created a new Revenue
Village, namely 'Chouhan Nagar' from the existing Revenue
Village 'Sohda'.
22. The writ petition states that the State Government, through
its circular dated 20.08.2009, mandated that for the creation of
new Revenue Villages in general areas, the population should not
be less than 250, and in desert and tribal sub-areas, it should be
at least 200. However, in the present case, the State Authorities
failed to comply with these requirements prior to notifying the
creation of new Revenue Village. The writ petition further alleges
that no consent was obtained from the Gram Sabha for the
proposed new Revenue Village, and further, the name 'Chouhan
Nagar' was chosen under the influence of the Chouhan families of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (18 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
the area, which is based on a surname and is thus is a violation of
the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14987/2025-
23. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the notification dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure 16)
whereby the State Government has created new Revenue Villages,
namely 'Hiranmagri' and 'Raila' from the existing Revenue
Village 'Bawarli'.
24. The petitioners have challenged the notification on the
grounds that the State Authorities did not seek or obtain the
consent of the residents of the existing Gram Panchayat, Bawarli
and thus the decision of the State Government does not reflect
the villagers' will as required by the various circulars issued by the
State Government. Additionally, it is alleged that the name
Hiranmagri was chosen under the influence of 'Heera Jaat,' of a
close relative of the current Sarpanch, and the village 'Raila' has
also been named based on the sub-caste of the Sarpanch, Shri
Ramu Ram of Gram Panchayat, Bawarli.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners-
25. Learned counsel for the petitioners in unison, submitted that
the impugned notification or impugned proposals, in relation to
creation of new Revenue Villages, have been either published or
sent for approval in utter disregard of the circulars dated
20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and
06.03.2025.
26. Learned counsel submitted that these aforementioned
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (19 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
circulars provide for exhaustive guidelines to be strictly followed
before the creation of new Revenue Villages and in the naming of
such newly created villages.
27. Learned counsel submitted that non-adherence to the
various guidelines and parameters laid out in the above mentioned
circulars renders the entire exercise of creating and naming of
new Revenue Villages superficial, failing to reflect the general will
of the local public and residents of the concerned areas.
28. Learned counsel submitted that the primary purpose behind
issuing the aforementioned circulars was to streamline and
facilitate the process of creating and naming new Revenue
Villages, ensuring that the procedure remains impartial and free
from the influence or preferences of politically motivated
individuals.
29. Learned counsel submitted that in the present writ petitions,
sufficient material has been placed on record to establish that the
State Government has acted contrary to the circulars dated
20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025
by illegally issuing the impugned notifications or approving the
proposals for creating and naming of new Revenue Villages under
the influence of a few individuals.
30. In sum and substance, the argument across all writ petitions
is either that the Revenue Villages have been notified without
holding Gram Sabha meetings to discuss and pass resolutions
endorsing or suggesting the creation of new Revenue Villages in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 8-A, 8-B, and 8-D of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (20 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, or that the villages have been
named after a particular person, religion, caste, or sub caste.
31. To support their contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of "Moola Ram
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (S.B. CWP No.3470/2025) and
other connected matters decided on 18.02.2025, "Pukh Raj v. State
of Rajasthan" (S.B. CWP No.7244/2025) decided on
13.05.2025 and "Banwari Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors." (S.B. CWP No.9469/2014) decided on 23.02.2015.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents-
32. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the impugned notifications for creation of new
Revenue Villages has been issued by the State Government in
exercise of powers conferred under the Section 16 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956').
33. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 16 of the Act
of 1956, the State Government is exclusively empowered to notify
the creation or abolition of divisions, districts, sub-divisions,
tehsils, sub-tehsils, and villages, or to alter their boundaries, for
better revenue administration and overall development of the
village population and, therefore, this Court, in the exercise of its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
ought not to intervene in the matter.
34. Learned counsel asserted that the creation of new villages,
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (21 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
being an act of legislative nature, could neither be challenged nor
entertained by this Court merely on the ground that before issuing
or notifying the new Revenue Villages, objections related to
violations of various guidelines or parameters like minimum
population criteria, or non-conducting of Gram Sabha meetings, as
laid down in the circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025,
18.02.2025, 28.02.2025, and 06.03.2025 were not considered or
entertained by the respondents, as the same are not statutory in
nature.
35. Learned counsel submitted that the circulars dated
20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025
have been issued by the State Government only to provide broad
guidelines aimed at making the process of creating new Revenue
Villages smooth, fair, and transparent, while also involving
villagers in the decision-making, the intent and body of circulars
cannot overreach the rule position.
36. Learned counsel contended that although these circulars were
released with good intentions, it soon became apparent that
achieving general consent from villagers or the concerned Gram
Sabha was challenging, as Gram Panchayats often failed to reach
a consensus, which caused delays in the process.
37. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that any violation of
the guidelines and parameters for creation of new Revenue
Villages mentioned in the aforementioned circulars would not, by
itself, render the exercise of creation of new Revenue Villages
illegal, as these circulars lack statutory authority and are not
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (22 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
enforceable by a court of law.
38. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their
arguments have placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(1) Bena Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.14297/2025)
decided on 26.08.2025.
(2) Nirmala v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
CWP No.15118/2025) decided on 11.08.2025.
(3) Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
CWP No.1055/2025) decided on 05.08.2025.
(4) Jogaram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. CWP No.7275/2025) decided on
08.05.2025.
(5) Ramaram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil
Writ Petition (PIL)No.1645/2013) decided on
22.07.2013.
(6) Banwari Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. CWP No.9469/2014) decided on
23.02.2015.
Relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 and circulars issued
by the State Government from time to time:-
39. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
40. Section 16 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:-
"Power to create, abolish or alter divisions etc. -
The State Government may by notification in the
[official Gazette]-
(a) create new or abolish existing [divisions] districts,
sub-divisions, tehsils and [sub-tehsils, villages], and
(b)alter the limits of any of them".
41. The circular dated 20.08.2009 is reproduced below for ready
reference:-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (23 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
"नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित किये जाने की प्रक्रिया के संबंध में राजस्व
विभाग द्वारा समय-समय पर आरी किये गये समस्त पू र्व परिपत्रों /निर्देशों के
अतिक्रमण में यह समग्र परिपत्र जारी किया जाकर इस सम्बन्ध में मानदण्ड
एवं प्रक्रिया निम्नानुसार निर्धारित की जाती है ।
राजस्व ग्राम न केवल, राजस्व प्रशासन की मूल ईकाई हैं , बल्कि
विकास एं व आयोजना के लिये भी एक महत्वपू र्ण आधार बिन्दु हैं । विभिन्न
जन-सु विधाओं एवं विकास योजनाओं यथा जल प्रदाय योजना, विद्यालय,
सडक, चिकित्सालय, विद्युतीकरण, डाक घर, बस स्टे ण्ड, रे ल्वे स्टे शन
इत्यादि की स्वीकृति के लिये राजस्व ग्राम एक महत्वपू र्ण आधार विन्दु है ।
राज्य में कही-ं कही ं पर आवादी मूल गां व से दू र अथवा बिखरी हुई ढाणियों में
भी बसी हुई है । विभिन्न विकास योजनाओं में सामान्यतया सु विधायें राजस्व
ग्राम की मुख्य आयादी में ही उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं । उसी राजस्व ग्राम में
दू र बसी हुई आबादी अथवा बिखरी हुई ढाणियों में बसी आबादी अलग से
राजस्व ग्राम घोषित नही ं होने के कारण विकास कार्यों से वन्चित रह जाती हैं ।
अतः इन ढाणियों में बसे लोगों को भी विकास कार्यों का पू र्ण लाभ उपलब्ध
कराने के लिये यह आवश्यक है कि इन सु दूर बसी आबादी एं व विखरी हुई
ढाणियों को भी राजस्व ग्राम घोषित किया जाये।
नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करने के लिये निम्न मानदण्ड/प्रक्रिया एतद्वारा
निर्धारित किए जाते हैं :-
1. मूल राजस्व ग्राम से दू र बसे जिन सु दूर आबादी क्षेत्र पं च बिखरी हुई
ढाणियों को नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित किया जाना हो, उनकी आयादी
सामान्य क्षेत्रों में 250 से कम न हो तथा रे गिस्तानी व अनुसूचित जनजाति
उपयोजना क्षेत्रों में 200 से कम न हो।
2. प्रस्तावित नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित होने के बाद मूल राजस्व ग्राम की
आबादी सामान्य क्षेत्रों में 250 से कम न हो तथा रे गिस्तानी य अनुसूचित
जनजाति उपयोजना क्षेत्रों में 200 से कम न हो।
3. नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित की जाने वाली ढाणियां /आबादी मूल राजस्व
ग्राम की ढाणियों/आबादी से कम से कम 1 कि.मी. की दू री पर हो।
4. नवीन राजस्व ग्राम प्रस्तावित करते समय उसके नाम का प्रस्ताव भी
भिजवाया जाये। नाम का निर्धारण करते समय यह सु निश्चित किया जाये कि
ग्राम का नाम किसी व्यक्ति, धर्म, जाति अथवा उप जाति के आधार पर नही ं
हो। जंहा तक सम्भव हो, ग्राम का नाम आस सहमति से प्रस्तावित किया
जाये।
5. यदि प्रस्तावित नवीन राजस्व ग्राम की आबादी बिखरी हुई ढाणियों अथवा
मजरों में बसी हुई हो, तो प्रस्तावित नवीन ग्राम के लिये सु विधाजनक स्थान
पर केन्द्र बिन्दु का चयन किया जाये। केन्द्र बिन्दु निर्धारित करते समय
आधारभूत सु विधाओं की उपलब्धता एं व आधारभूत सु विधाओं के विस्तार के
लिये भूमि की उपलब्धता को भी ध्यान में रखा जाये।
6. यदि नवीन ग्राम में आधारभूत सु विधाओं एं व इनके विस्तार के लिये पर्याप्त
सिवाय चक, चारागाह अथवा अन्य विलानाम भूमि उपलब्ध हो तो ऐसी भू मि
को नवीन प्रस्तावित गां व की आधारभूत सु विधाओं तथा आबादी विस्तार के
लिये आरक्षित कर दिया जाये। यदि पर्याप्त चारागाह या दिलानाम भू मि
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (24 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
उपलब्ध नही ं हो ले किन स्थानीय व्यक्ति ग्राम की आबादी एं व आधारभूत
सु विधाओं के लिये अपनी भू मि उपलब्ध कराने के लिये सहमत हो तो उस
भूमि को भी आरक्षित कर दिया जाये।
7. नवीन राजस्व ग्रामों के प्रस्ताव भिजवाते समय संलग्न परिशिठ में निर्धारित
सू चना आवश्यक रूप से भिजवाई जाये।
नवीन राजस्व ग्रामों की स्थापना हे तु जन प्रतिनिधिर्यो / स्थानीय जनता
से तो लगातार प्रस्ताव प्राप्त होतें ही रहते हैं । ले किन नवीन राजस्व ग्राम
घोषित करने के लिये यह आवश्यक नही ं है कि इसके लिये जन प्रतिनिधियों /
स्थानीय नियासियों द्वारा मां ग की जाये। अगर राजस्व अधिकारी यह महसूस
करें कि ग्राम में ओ ढाणियां बसी है वह मूल गां व से काफी दू र हैं तथा नवीन
राजस्य ग्रास घोषित करने के लिये निर्धारित मानदण्ड पू र्ण करती है तो उन
पर भी विचार किया जा सकता है । अत राजस्व अधिकारी अपने क्षेत्रों का
भ्रमण कर ऐसे प्रकरणों का चिन्हीकरण कर उन प्रकरणों में स्थानीय स्तर पर
विचार कर निला कलक्टर एवं राजस्य मण्डल के माध्यम से राज्य सरकार को
अपने प्रस्ताव भिजवा सकते हैं ।
अब तक प्रास सभी प्रस्तार्यों का परीक्षण कर नवीन राजस्य ग्राम सृ जित
करने के प्रस्ताव शीघ्रातिशीघ्र राजस्य मण्डल के माध्यम से इस विभाग को
भिजवाये जायें ताकि सभी प्रस्तार्यों का परीक्षण किया जाकर राजस्थान भू -
राजस्व अधिनियम, 1956 की धारा 16 के अन्तर्गत नवीन राजस्व ग्राम
घोषित किये आने की कार्यवाही की जा सके।"
42. The amendment introduced in Clause 4 of the circular dated
20.08.2009 vide circular dated 17.02.2025 reads as under:-
"अतः नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करने के संबंध में विभाग के परिपत्र
दिनां क 20.08.2009 के बिन्दु संख्या-4 में निम्नानुसार संशोधन किया जाता
है :-
4. प्रस्तावित राजस्व ग्राम के नाम का चयन स्थानीय ग्राम पं चायत द्वारा
सर्वसम्मति से निर्णय पारित कर ग्राम सभा का सहमति प्रस्ताव एवं ग्राम
पं चायत की अनापत्ति प्रमाण-पत्र नवीन ग्राम के प्रस्ताव में आवश्यक रुप से
संलग्न प्रे षित किया जावे। ग्राम का नाम पू र्व प्रचलित ढाणियों के नाम अनुसार/
आमजन में अभ्यस्त नाम/शहीद (प्रमाणित दस्तावेज की प्रति), महापुरूष
आदि के नाम पर स्थानीय जनभावना को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रस्तावित किये
जायें। यथा संभव प्रस्तावित ग्राम का नाम व्यक्ति, धर्म , जाति अथवा उपजाति
के आधार पर नही ं हो। ग्रामों के नाम का चयन करते समय इस बात का
ध्यान रखा जाना आवश्यक है कि मूल तहसील में उसी नाम का कोई ग्राम या
कस्बा आदि न हो, जिससे आमजन में भ्रां ति की स्थिति उत्पन्न न हो।"
43. The Clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 was further
amended vide circular dated 18.02.2025 in the following manner:-
"4. प्रस्तावित राजस्व ग्राम के नाम का चयन स्थानीय ग्राम पं चायत
द्वारा सर्वसम्मति से निर्णय पारित कर ग्राम सभा का सहमति प्रस्ताव एवं ग्राम
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (25 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
पं चायत की अनापत्ति प्रमाण-पत्र नवीन ग्राम के प्रस्ताव में आवश्यक रुप से
संलग्न प्रे षित किया जावे। ग्राम का नाम पू र्व प्रचलित ढाणियों के नाम अनुसार/
आमजन में अभ्यस्त नाम / शहीद (प्रमाणित दस्तावेज की प्रति), महापुरूष
आदि के नाम पर स्थानीय जनभावना को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रस्तावित किये
जायें। यथा संभव प्रस्तावित ग्राम का नाम व्यक्ति, धर्म , जाति अथवा उपजाति
के आधार पर नही ं हो। ग्रामों के नाम का चयन करते समय इस बात का
ध्यान रखा जाना आवश्यक है कि मूल तहसील में उसी नाम का कोई ग्राम या
कस्बा आदि न हो, जिससे आमजन में भ्रां ति की स्थिति उत्पन्न न हो।"
44. In continuity of the circular dated 18.02.2025, the State
Government issued circular dated 28.02.2025. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid circular is reproduced below for ready
reference:-
"अतः नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करने के संबंध में विभागीय परिपत्र
दिनां क 18.02.2025 में उल्ले खित निर्देशों की निरन्तरता में वर्तमान
परिस्थितियों के परिपेक्ष्य में विकल्प के तौर पर निम्न प्रक्रिया एतद्वारा निर्धारित
की जाती है :-
ढ़ाणी/मजरे जो नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करने हे तु निर्धारित मानदं डों
को पू र्ण करती है . परन्तु प्रस्तावों पर ग्राम पं चायत से आमसभा का सहमति
प्रस्ताव / अनापत्ति प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त किया जाना संभव नही ं हो पा रहा है ,
विकल्प के तौर पर इन समस्त प्रस्तावों में संबंधित ग्राम विकास अधिकारी एवं
पटवारी को सहमति प्रस्ताव एवं अनापति प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करने हे तु अधिकृत
किया जाता है । सर्वप्रथम उन्हें यह सु निश्चित करना होगा कि प्रस्तावित गां व
निर्धारित मानदं डों को पूरा करते हैं , इसके पश्चात् ही सहमति प्रस्ताव /
अनापत्ति पत्र को प्रमाणित किया जा सकेगा। प्रस्ताव प्रेषित करते समय
हस्ताक्षर करने वाले अधिकारी/कर्मचारी द्वारा नाम एवं पदनाम का अं कन
किया जाना आवश्यक है ।"
45. In supersession of Clauses 1, 2 & 4 of circular dated
20.06.2009 and Clause 4 of circulars dated 18.02.2025 and
28.02.2025, the State Government issued an another circular
dated 06.03.2025. The relevant portion of the aforesaid circular is
reproduced below for ready reference:-
"नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करने के संबंध में विभाग द्वारा जारी परिपत्र
दिनां क 20.08.2009 में उल्ले खित बिन्दु संख्या 1, 2 व 4 तथा परिपत्र
दिनां क 18.02.2025 एवं 28.02.2025 में उल्ले खित बिन्दु संख्या 4 को
अधिक्रमित करते हुए राज्य सरकार निम्न मानदण्ड/प्रक्रिया एतद्वारा निर्धारित
करती है :-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (26 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
1. मूल राजस्व ग्राम से दू र स्थित गां व/ ढाणियों / मजरों को नवीन राजस्व
ग्राम घोषित करने हे तु उनकी आबादी सामान्य क्षेत्रों में 200 से कम न हो
तथा रे गिस्तानी व अनुसूचित जनजाति उपयोजना क्षेत्रों में 150 से कम न हो।
2. नवीन राजस्व ग्राम घोषित होने पश्चात् मूल राजस्व ग्राम की शे ष आबादी
सामान्य क्षेत्रों में 200 से कम न हो तथा रे गिस्तानी व अनुसूचित जनजाति
उपयोजना क्षेत्रों में 150 से कम न हो।
4. नवीन राजस्व ग्राम का नाम स्थानीय ग्रामीणों की आम सहमति / ग्राम के
प्रचलित नाम /सरपं च/ग्रामसेवक की अनुशंसा के आधार पर प्रस्तावित किया
जाए।"
Analysis of the arguments in the context of S.16 of the Act
of 1956 and myriad Circulars issued by the State
Government:-
46. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel
for the respondents -- that the establishment of a new Revenue
Village under Rule 16 of the Act of 1956 is a legislative act, and
thus, this Court should refrain from intervening-- this Court finds
it useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in "Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr."
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 720 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while making a distinction between legislative,
administrative and quasi judicial acts held as under:-
"A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a
general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases;
an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific
direction or the application of a general rule to a particular
case in accordance with the requirements of policy.
Legislation in the process of formulating a general rule of
conduct without reference to particular cases and usually
operating in future; administration is the process of
performing particular acts, of issuing particular orders or of
making decisions which apply general rules to particular
cases'. It has also been said: "Rule making is normally
directed toward the formulation of requirements having a
general application to all members of a broadly identifiable
class" while, "an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (27 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
specific individuals or situations". But this is only a broad
distinction, not necessarily always true. Administration and
administrative adjudication may also be of general application
and there may be legislation of particular application only.
That is not ruled out. Again, adjudication determines past and
present facts and declares right and liabilities while legislation
indicates the future course of action. Adjudication is
determinative of the past and the present while legislation is
indicative of future. The object of the rule, the reach of its
application, the rights and obligations arising out of it. Its
intended effect on past, present and future events, its form,
the manner of its promulgation are some factors which may
help in drawing the line between legislative and non-
legislative acts""
47. Based on the principles of law laid down in the case of
Cynamide India Ltd. (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of "State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh & Ors"
reported in (2002) 2 SSC 7, after considering the facts of that
case, was pleased to hold that the principles of law that emerge
from the aforesaid decisions are- (1) where provisions of a statue
provide for the legislative activity, i.e. making of a legislative
instrument or promulgation of general rule of conduct or a
declaration by a notification by the Government that certain place
or area shall be part of a Gram Sabha and on issue of such a
declaration certain other statutory provisions come into an action
forthwith which provide for certain consequences; (2) where the
power to be exercised by the Government under provisions of a
statute does not concern with the interest of an individual and it
relates to public in general or concerns with a general direction of
a general character and not direct against an individual or to a
particular situation and (3) lay down future course of actions, the
same is generally held to be legislative in character.
48. Having gone through Section 16 of the Act of 1956, facts of
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (28 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
the present writ petitions so also the objections with regard to
creation of new Revenue Villages, this Court observes that
Revenue Villages serve as both the fundamental unit of revenue
administration and a vital foundation for the development and
planning of the entire State at grassroot levels, which is in
consonance with our Constitutional Ethos. The State Government
recognized that development benefits were predominantly limited
to the residents of the main, densely populated areas of the
village, often excluding those in remote, sparsely populated
regions like Dhanis. To address this disparity, the State
Government has time and again decided to create new Revenue
Villages, ensuring that the benefits of development are extended
to all residents, not just those in the primary settlement areas. In
essence, the creation of new Revenue Villages through territorial
adjustments is driven by administrative convenience and the need
for effective land revenue management.
49. In view of aforesaid, the creation of a new village or the
decision to alter the boundaries or limits of a Revenue Village
impacts a defined area or a particular village, and is not related to
the general public in an abstract sense. The decision to establish a
new Revenue Village is made based on the specific needs of a
village, with the aim of ensuring that the benefits of development,
such as water supply, roads, healthcare facilities, electrification,
etc. reach out to all the citizens, rather than being limited to those
in the main settlement area. Additionally, this approach facilitates
the better maintenance of revenue records for the area, ultimately
contributing to more efficient revenue administration, including
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (29 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
the collection of land revenue, record-keeping, local governance,
and the effective resolution of revenue disputes among the
residents of the village.
50. Thus, in light of aforesaid observations and in view of the
precedent law laid down in the case of Cynamide India Ltd. and
Tehal Singh, the arguments raised by the respondents with
regard to creation of Revenue Villages being a legislative act is
rejected and it is thus held that the exercise of creation of new
Revenue Villages under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 is an
administrative act which is based on the administrative / policy
decision of the Government.
51. Though it is a settled position of law that administrative
decisions are a prerogative of the executive and the same should
not usually be interfered by the Court, but the said decisions can
still be interfered with, if they are found to have been taken
arbitrarily, with mala fide intent, or in a mechanical manner
without proper application of mind.
52. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Rama Ram v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors." (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL)
No.1645/2013) decided on 22.07.2013 while dealing with a
similar controversy was pleased to observe that the revenue
administration is the best judge in the matters concerning creation
of new villages and in the absence of any unimpeachable proof of
any violation of the prescribes norms pertaining to the bifurcation
of an establishment of a Revenue Village, such disputes cannot be
gone into by this Court.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (30 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
[Emphasis Supplied]
53. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the present batch of
writ petitions questions the impugned notifications issued by the
State Government for creation of new Revenue Villages and
naming the newly created villages on the ground that the State
Government has not followed the parameters and guidelines laid
down by it in circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025,
18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025.
54. It appears to this Court that though the Section 16 of the Act
of 1956 confers absolute power upon the State Government to
create new or abolish existing villages, the circulars dated
20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025
lay down additional guidelines and parameters for creation of the
new Revenue Villages for administrative convenience. This Court
observes that no doubt the circulars aforementioned lay down
procedure certain guidelines and parameters for creating a new
Revenue Village, but the primary purpose of the same is merely to
streamline the process and ensure it remains smooth and hassle-
free.
55. These circulars have not been issued in the official gazette.
The circulars, by themselves, do not create, abolish or alter
administrative territorial units of the village. These circulars also
do not include any provision stating that the failure to adhere to
the procedures and parameters outlined within them would render
the entire process of creating a new Revenue Village invalid, nor
do they specify that the State Government is bound to establish a
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (31 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
new Revenue Village upon receiving a proposal in accordance with
the aforementioned circulars, and therefore, the guidelines and
parameters laid down in the circulars dated 20.08.2009,
17.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 are found
not to have any statutory force although it is expected from the
authorities to adhere to the said guidelines and parameters as far
as possible so as to avoid any element of arbitrariness in creation
of the same.
56. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a
consideration of the circular dated 20.08.2009, this Court finds
that the circular dated 20.08.2009 gives ample discretion to the
revenue authorities for the creation of new Revenue Villages in
order to facilitate development activities and aid in better
administration at all levels of governance. The guidelines and
parameters prescribed in the circular dated 20.08.2009 with
regard to taking decision / forwarding proposal for creation of new
Revenue Village, can be summarized in the following manner:-
1. Minimum population of the new Revenue Village should not
be less than 250 inhabitants/residents and in cases of
deserts and tribal areas, the same should not be less than
200 inhabitants/residents.
2. Distance between a new Revenue Village with that of
existing village should be at least one kilometer.
3. There should be availability of land for establishment of
basic amenities in the village.
4. As far as possible the new revenue villages should not be
named after any person, caste, sub caste or religion.
5. Reserving certain classes of land viz. Sivay Chak,
Charagaah and Bilanaam land for the development of basic
amenities in the village.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (32 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
57. Clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 was amended vide
notification dated 17.02.2025 and in addition to the requirement
of newly created village not to be named after any person, caste,
sub caste or religion, it was added that as far as possible, the
newly created villages be named after pre-existing dhanis,
prevalently used words by general public or any martyr or
nobleman (mahapurush) of the area concerned.
58. Clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 was further
amended vide notification dated 18.02.2025 wherein it was stated
that while naming the newly created village or sending proposals
thereof, it should be kept in mind that no village or town of similar
name is already existing in the tehsil concerned so as to avoid any
confusion with regard to name of the village.
59. At this juncture, it is relevant to note here that after
initiation of the process of new Revenue Villages in conformity
with circular dated 20.08.2009, a number of writ petitions came to
be filed before this Court being aggrieved by the creation of new
Revenue Villages/proposals of new Revenue Villages in violation of
Clause 4 of the circular. In those writ petitions, it was alleged that
the proposals for new Revenue Villages have been sent and
accepted without adhering to the guidelines and parameters in
clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 and the villages have
been named against particular person, caste, sub-caste, region
etc.
60. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing a batch of
writ petitions led by Moola Ram (supra) was pleased to hold
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (33 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
that before naming the newly created Revenue Village, the State
Government is required to follow the guidelines and parameters
mentioned in Clause 4 of the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
17.02.2025. The aforesaid direction was made applicable for all
the cases in which the notification for creation of new villages was
not issued or the same was in process.
61. The respondents, after passing of the judgment by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Moola Ram (supra),
issued circulars dated 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, whereby the
condition / guideline of clause 4 of circulars dated 20.08.2009,
17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025- that the newly created Revenue
Village should not be named after a particular person, caste, sub
caste or religion, was deleted.
62. The said decision of the State Government came to be
challenged before this Court in the case of Joga Ram v. The
State of Rajasthan (S.B. CWP No.7275/2025). The challenge
was mainly raised on the ground that removing the expression
from the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025, which
prohibited naming newly created Revenue Villages after a
particular person, caste, sub-caste, or religion, is illegal and
arbitrary.
63. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
08.05.2025 in the case of Joga Ram (supra) was pleased to hold
that the deletion of condition/guideline with regard to naming of
newly created Revenue Villages after a particular person, caste,
sub caste or religion is indeed illegal and arbitrary. The co-ordinate
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (34 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
Bench directed that no Revenue Village should be created in the
name of a particular person, caste, sub caste or religion. The
direction given in the case of Joga Ram (supra) were made
applicable in all the cases which are/were in pipeline or pending
consideration before the State Government.
64. Further, dealing with the controversy with regard to naming
of the newly created Revenue Villages, this Court in the case of
Bena Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CWP No.14297/2025)
and Nirmala v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CWP
No.15118/2025), held that the question of legality or validity
concerning the naming of newly created Revenue Villages cannot
be examined under the writ jurisdiction of the Court unless it is
proven on record that such naming was done with the intent to
glorify a living individual or under the influence of an elected
representative, while holding that no such challenge can be
entertained if the villages are named after a decorated member of
the armed forces or the police.
65. By issuing the circulars dated 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025,
the condition with regard to obtaining majority consent for
creation of new Revenue Village by an NOC / approval in the
general meeting (Aam Sabha) as mentioned in the circulars dated
17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 came to be diluted. The new
guidelines provided that Gram Vikas Adhikari and Patwari can also
make recommendation for creation of New Revenue Village, if the
new village to be created otherwise fulfills all other laid down
parameters. This was done keeping in view the fact that the
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (35 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
requirement of obtaining general consensus / NOC in the meeting
of Gram Panchayat for creation of new Revenue Village was
creating an impediment in the overall process of development.
Further, the guidelines also diluted the prescribed number of
minimum population of the new Revenue Village to 200
inhabitants and in the cases of desert and tribal areas, to 150
residents.
Conclusion:
66. In the context of the facts detailed herein above, this Court
finds that as far as dispute with regard to naming the newly
created Revenue Village is concerned, the State Government as
far as possible should not name the Revenue Villages after any
person, caste, sub caste or religion, in conformity with the
circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 so also
the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Moola Ram (supra). However, since the circulars issued
in that regard by the State Government have no statutory force,
no challenge in that regard can be entertained by this Court
unless it is established on record beyond doubt that the Revenue
Village has been named after a particular person, deity or caste to
appease a particular religious or political group/under the
influence of any political influential person or representative/a
living person who is closely associated with the affairs of the
village concerned arbitrarily and mala fidely. This is also for the
reason that, historically, Indian cities and towns, both rural and
urban, have been named based on a mix of Religious, Historical
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (36 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
and Political Figures, coupled with Geographical Characteristics
and the Colonial Identities.
67. In that background, upon scanning the pleading of the writ
petitions and documents attached with them, this Court, prima
facie does not find any intentional and deliberate departure from
the guidelines and parameters laid down in clause 4 of the
circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and
06.03.2025 by the respondents while naming the new Revenue
Villages, thus, the arguments raised by petitioners qua deviation
from the circulars to name new revenue villages is hereby turned
down.
68. The challenge made to creation of new Revenue Villages on
the ground that no general consent or NOC was obtained before
their creation deserves to be negated for the simple reason that, a
plain reading of the circular dated 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025,
nowhere binds the respondent authorities to convene a meeting of
Gram Sabha / Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat for floating the
proposal / grant of NOC for creation of a new Revenue Village,
before adopting the alternative mechanism of forwarding the
proposal for creation of a new Revenue Village, if it fulfills all the
relevant guidelines and parameters. The alternative mechanism,
was prescribed by the State Government looking to the difficulties
faced in creation of new Revenue Villages for want of general
consensus amongst residents of the area concerned, which in turn
was creating hindrance and deterrence to the development at
grass root level.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (37 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
69. So far as the ground taken by some petitioners regarding
violation of circulars laying down guidelines with respect to
requirement of minimum population and distance is concerned,
this Court observes that the respondents in their replies to the
writ petitions have taken a specific stand with respect to both.
They have submitted that before issuing notifications for the
creation of new Revenue Villages or considering such proposals,
compliance with the population requirement was ensured by
examining official census data, ration card records, and other
relevant documents. Similarly, the minimum distance requirement
between the newly created and existing Revenue Villages was
verified using official revenue maps and records. The respondents
further asserted that no Revenue Village has been established
without adhering to the conditions and guidelines on population
and distance set out in the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
06.03.2025.
70. In the aforesaid situation, the factual dispute with regard to
non adherence to the guidelines and parameters laid down with
regard to population and distance raised in few of the writ
petitions cannot be gone into as the Division Bench in the case of
Rama Ram (supra) categorically and in unambiguous terms held
that in the absence of any impeachable proof of any violation of
prescribed norms pertaining to the bifurcation of and
establishment of Revenue Village, no interference in such matters
is called for. It is a settled legal position of law, that in a case
which involves disputed question of facts, the High Court cannot
go into the same in exercise of its extra- ordinary jurisdiction
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42407] (38 of 38) [CW-14930/2025]
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, to resolve
the aforesaid factual dispute, the writ petitioner(s) may file
representation(s) before the competent authority of the State
Government within 30 days from today. In case, a
representation(s) are so filed, it is expected from the concerned
State Authority that the same shall be considered and decided as
expeditiously as possible.
71. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present batch
of writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
72. The stay petitions also stand dismissed.
73. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
272,42,52,282, 274,54-55,86,88,89 to 92, -himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 06:41:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
