[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mula Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (1 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1618/2025
1. Mula Ram S/o Moti Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
2. Kailash Makar S/o Moti Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
3. Jetha Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
4. Maghi Devi W/o Jetha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
5. Pema Ram S/o Rekha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
6. Shrawan Kumar S/o Rekha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
7. Birbal Ram S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
8. Dhanni D/o Bhaira Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
9. Durga Ram S/o Thaker Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Ganesh Nagar- Chimana, Jodhpur, District Phalodi,
Rajasthan- 342311.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector, Phalodi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (2 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Laxmi Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, AAAG.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
JUDGMENT
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 09.04.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 09.04.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 27.04.2026
Per Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, J:
1. Present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred
against order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by learned
Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14785/2025, whereby
writ petition filed by appellants-petitioners came to be dismissed.
By way of said writ petition, petitioners had challenged modified
notification dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure-3), whereby creation of
new revenue village "Ganesh Nagar" in Tehsil Ghantiyali, District
Phalodi was cancelled.
2. While explaining facts germane to present appeal, learned
counsel for appellants-petitioners stated that there had been a
long standing demand for creation of new village, namely 'Ganesh
Nagar' out of existing Village Chimana even as far back as in Aam
Sabha meeting dated 29.06.1996, a proposal (Annexure-9) in that
regard had been approved and sent to the Government for
creation of new village. It is stated that new village 'Ganesh
Nagar' was fulfilling all requisite criteria for creation of new village
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (3 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
and the State Government on being satisfied about the same,
issued notification dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure-11), thereby
created a new village in the name of "Ganesh Nagar" out of
existing Village Chimana.
2.1 Said notification dated 05.04.2025 was challenged before
learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7814/2025
(decided on 23.04.2025), and upon request of learned counsel for
petitioners in that petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of
writ petition by directing respondent authorities to consider and
decide the representation of petitioners in light of judgment
passed in Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B.C.W.P. No. 3470/2025, decided on 18.02.2025) and circulars
issued by State Government in the regard.
Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1 has vide communication
dated 17.06.2025 directed District Collector, Phalodi to decide the
representations submitted by said petitioners within seven days.
Along with the said communication, a report regarding the
outcome of proceedings for personal hearing given by Personal
Secretary, Revenue Department was attached wherein it was
clearly recommended to keep the creation of village intact.
2.2 In that regard, a detailed representation was submitted on
behalf of appellants and other villagers, stating that order in the
writ petition was passed ex parte, and that objections regarding
creation of new village were unjustified, as all prescribed criteria
stood fulfilled.
2.3 Learned counsel for appellants submitted that respondent
no. 2- District Collector, Phalodi, vide order dated 09.07.2025,
while deciding representation in light of Moola Ram (supra),
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (4 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
observed that name of village appeared to be person-specific and
on that basis alone, recommended for cancellation of newly
created village. Pursuant thereto, State Government issued
notification dated 25.07.2025 withdrawing the earlier notification
dated 05.04.2025 and thereby, cancelled creation of Village
"Ganesh Nagar."
2.4 The said order dated 09.07.2025 and notification dated
25.07.2025 were challenged before learned Single Judge in writ
petition bearing Nos. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14785/2025,
which was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-1)
holding that name of the village was based on a deity worshipped
by a particular community, thus, no interference in the notification
impugned is called for. The said judgment is under challenge in
present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellants argued that, in earlier round
of litigation, i.e., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7814/2025, challenge
to notification dated 05.04.2025 was confined solely to the issue
of naming of newly created village in light of Moola Ram (supra),
and therefore, notification creating the village could not have been
cancelled merely on objections to its name. It was submitted that
there was no material to suggest non-fulfilment of the prescribed
criteria for creation of new village or the name "Ganesh Nagar"
was based on the name of any specific person or caste or religion
or deity.
3.1 It was further contended that even in Moola Ram (supra), a
fresh process in terms of circulars dated 20.08.2009 and
17.02.2025 was contemplated, and name "Ganesh Nagar" is fully
in consonance with the said circular. Learned counsel also
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (5 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
submitted that respondents failed to establish existence of any
specific person named Ganesh or Ganesha Ram, and finding of
learned Single Judge that the name was based on a deity
worshipped by a particular community is perverse and
unsupported by any pleading or material on record.
4. Au contraire, learned Additional Advocate General ("AAG")
supported action of respondents in issuing impugned notification
dated 25.07.2025. However, he failed to establish any direct or
even casual connection with any specific person named Ganesh or
Ganesha Ram to substantiate the allegation that name of village
had been kept on basis of name of a particular person, caste/sub-
caste, or religion.
4.1 Learned AAG relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Bhika Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., (SLP No. 27965/2025) decided on 19.12.2025 so also
judgment passed in the case of Mala Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material
available on record.
6. This Court has carefully considered the facts of present case
in chronology. Upon careful examination of record, this Court finds
that there had been a consistent demand for creation of a new
village, namely "Ganesh Nagar", which earlier formed part of
Village Chimana. As evident from documents placed on record, a
Government Senior Secondary School as well as an Anganwadi
centre has also been sanctioned specifically for the area and in
name of "Ganesh Nagar" and various development works have
also been approved specifically for "Ganesh Nagar". The resolution
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (6 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
of Aam Sabha meeting held in the year 1996 further fortifies that
such proposal was pending consideration before the State
Government since last more than two decades. It is also evident
that respondent authorities, after due consideration and upon
being satisfied that all prescribed criteria stood fulfilled, issued
notification dated 05.04.2025 creating the new revenue village.
6.1 This Court also finds that vide order dated 23.04.2025,
passed in the earlier writ petition, directions were issued only for
consideration of representations in light of Moola Ram (supra),
which primarily dealt with the issue of naming of revenue village
and not relating to creation of village. The relevant part of Moola
Ram (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. I have considered the submissions made at the
bar and gone through the relevant record of the case
including the circular dated 17.02.2025 issued by the
State Government amending clause 4 of the Circular
dated 20.08.2009.
10. Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is
reproduced as under:
"16. Power to create, abolish or alter divisions etc. -
The State Government may be notification in the
[official Gazette]-
(a) create new or abolish existing [divisions] districts,
sub-divisions, tehsils and [subtehsils, villages], and
(b) alter the limits of any of them.
*****
13. Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act
gives power to the State Government for creation of
new villages in State of Rajasthan while undertaking
the exercise for creation of new villages. For this
purpose, the parameters/guidelines mentioned in the
circular dated 20.8.2009 are required to be adhered to
by the State Government.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (7 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
14. As per the amended Clause 4, the parameters
required for giving the name to the newly created
revenue village has been mentioned. There are certain
restrictions, which have been imposed keeping in mind
the ethos of democracy and larger public interest.
Although, this Court takes note of the fact that
amended clause 4 has been passed in liberalized form
though the sanctity of checks and balances have been
mentioned.
15. Perusal of amended Clause 4 clearly shows that
the State Government has modified the earlier clause
4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 vide its circular
dated 17.02.2025 and Gram Panchayats have now
been directed to get a resolution passed by majority in
the Gram Sabha and that proposal is required to be
sent to the State Government. A bare reading of the
provision stated above shows that a newly created
village should not be named after any person, caste,
sub-caste or religion and in the present batch of writ
petition it is named after a person, caste and sub-
caste. "Gogaji" is a local deity worshiped by a
particular community.
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.
*****
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
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (8 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
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."
6.2 Perusal of aforesaid judgment shows that issue involved
therein was confined to naming of revenue village, and in
compliance with directions dated 23.04.2025, Respondent No. 1
clearly recommended that notification creating the new village be
kept intact. However, in impugned order dated 09.07.2025
(Annexure-2), District Collector held that name of village appeared
to be person-specific, without recording any finding regarding the
existence of such person or any material to show that name of
newly created village "Ganesh Nagar" relates to an individual
named Ganesh or Ganesha Ram.
Apart from this observation, no finding was recorded that
creation of new village was in contravention of any prescribed
norms or criteria, yet cancellation of notification was
recommended. The order is thus, unsustainable, as it neither
identifies any such person nor properly considers the
representations of the villagers, and further runs contrary to the
mandate of Moola Ram (supra) and circular dated 17.02.2025,
which do not contemplate cancellation of a newly created village
solely on an objection to its name.
7. This Court also finds that learned Single Judge while deciding
in case of Moola Ram (supra), had directed respondent
authorities to consider proposals in light of circulars dated
20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025. Relevant part of circular dated
17.02.2025 is quoted below:-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (9 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
"vr% uohu jktLo xzke ?kksf'kr djus ds laca/k esa foHkkx ds
ifji= fnukad 20-08-2009 ds fcUnq la[;k&4 esa fuEukuqlkj
la"kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS%&
^^izLrkfor jktLo xzke ds uke dk p;u LFkkuh; xzke iapk;r
n~okjk loZlEefr ls fu.kZ; ikfjr dj xzke lHkk dk lgefr
izLrko ,oa xzke iapk;r dh vukifRr izek.k&i= uohu xzke ds
izLrko esa vko";d :i ls layXu izsf'kr fd;k tkosA xzke dk uke
iwoZ izpfyr <kf.k;ksa ds uke vuqlkj@vketu esa vH;Lr
uke@"kghn ¼izekf.kr nLrkost dh izfr½] egkiq:'k vkfn ds uke
ij LFkkuh; tuHkkouk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izLrkfor fd;s tkosaA
;Fkk laHko izLrkfor xzke dk uke O;fDr] /keZ] tkfr vFkok
mitkfr ds vk/kkj ij ugha gksA xzkeksa ds uke dk p;u djrs
le; bl ckr dk /;ku j[kk tkuk vko";d gS fd ewy rglhy
esa mlh uke dk dksbZ xzke ;k dLck vkfn u gks] ftlls vketu
esa Hkzkafr dh fLFkfr mRiUu u gksA
fcUnq la[;k 4 ds vfrfjDr ifji= fnukad 20-08-2009 esa
mYysf[kr vU; ekun.M ;Fkkor jgsaxsA"
7.1 The said circular clearly provides that name of a village may
be kept as per its prevailing and popularly known name. The
documents placed on record clearly suggest that since 1996, area
forming part of Village Chimana has been known as "Ganesh
Nagar". The said area has consistently been referred to in various
Government orders by that name; therefore, naming the new
village as "Ganesh Nagar" is in consonance with circular dated
17.02.2025.
8. This Court is of opinion that reliance placed by learned AAG
on judgment rendered in Bhika Ram (supra) also supports the
case of appellants, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held therein that policy decisions, once in existence, are binding in
nature and Government cannot act contrary thereto. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein below:
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (10 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
"16. 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."
8.1 In present case, name of newly created village has been kept
in accordance with its previously prevailing and popularly known
name, and thus, the same is in consonance with circular issued by
respondent-State itself. This Court further finds that there is no
allegation in the present case regarding non-fulfilment of
prescribed parameters, such as population, distance, or other
criteria required for creation of a new village. Therefore, no
justification was available with respondent no. 2 to recommend
cancellation of the notification creating the new village.
9. This Court is of considered opinion that creation of a new
revenue village and naming of such village are two distinct
aspects, governed by different considerations and parameters.
While creation of a village depends upon fulfilment of prescribed
criteria such as population, distance, and administrative
convenience, the naming of a village is a separate exercise guided
by other relevant policy/circulars. Therefore, an objection with
regard to the name, by itself, cannot furnish a valid ground for
cancellation of the creation of a duly constituted revenue village.
9.1 Moreover, this Court finds that learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the real controversy involved in present case, namely
the legality of cancellation of the notification dated 25.07.2025,
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17074-DB] (11 of 11) [SAW-1618/2025]
whereby creation of the new village was annulled solely on the
ground of objection to its name. Such cancellation cannot be
sustained in law. This Court also finds that observation of learned
Single Judge that village "Ganesh Nagar" was named after a deity
worshipped by a particular community is patently perverse, as
neither any such objection was raised nor any such reasoning was
recorded by the District Collector, Phalodi in impugned order dated
09.07.2025. The said finding is thus, without any factual or legal
basis, cannot be allowed to sustain.
10. In view of aforesaid, present appeal is, hereby, allowed in
toto. Impugned judgment dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned
Single Judge is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
Impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by District
Collector, Phalodi as well as subsequent notification dated
25.07.2025 are also hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent
of village "Ganesh Nagar". The original notification dated
05.04.2025 for creation of new village "Ganesh Nagar" is restored.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:19:03 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
