[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raichand Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10458) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10458]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21900/2025
Raichand Ram S/o Sagra Ram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village
Pannaniyo Ki Dhani, Matte Ka Talla, Tehsil Chouhatan, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue (Group-
1) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Chouhtan, District Barmer.
4. Tehsildar (Land Record), Chouhtan, District Barmer.
5. Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
Mr. Sher Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
26/02/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated
10.09.2025, whereby representation submitted by petitioner in
pursuance of directions issued by this Court vide order dated
26.03.2025, passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 6494/2025, has been
rejected by District Collector, Barmer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
representation of petitioner has been rejected in a pre-determined
and cursory manner and without considering the objections raised
by petitioner in relation to the name of revenue village.
While referring to other such orders of deciding the representation
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 12:04:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10458] (2 of 4) [CW-21900/2025]
dated 18.8.2025 (Annexure-8), learned counsel for the petitioner
states that as a matter of fact, in all other representations,
specific finding has been recorded by District Collector, Barmer,
regarding non-existence of specific person after whose name,
allegedly the name of the revenue village has been fixed.
However, no such finding has been recorded in case of petitioner.
3. Learned AAG submits that the impugned decision has been
passed in view of circular dated 17.02.2025 as well as judgment
passed by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 14930/2025 titled Mala
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment
dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(C) No. 27965/2025 titled Bhika Ram & Anr. Vs. State Of
Rajasthan & Ors., relevant part of which is quoted below:-
"14. We have considered the rival submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. Section 16 of the
Act, empowers the State Government to create, abolish or
alter divisions etc. Section 16 of the Act is extracted below
for the facility of reference:-
"Section 16 : Power to create, abolish or
alter divisions etc.-
The State Government may by notification in the
official Gazette-
(a) create new or abolish existing division
districts, sub-districts, sub-divisions, tehsils and
sub-tehsils, villages, and
(b) alter the limits of any of them."
15. The Revenue Department of the State Government
issued a comprehensive circular on 20.08.2009, laying
down the criteria for declaring a new Revenue Village.
Clause 4 of the aforesaid circular, which is relevant for this
Appeal, reads as under:-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 12:04:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10458] (3 of 4) [CW-21900/2025]
4. While proposing the new Revenue Village,
a proposal for its name shall also be forwarded.
While deciding the name, it shall be ensured that
it is not based on any person, religion, caste, or
sub-caste. As far as possible, the name of the
village shall be proposed with general
consensus."
Thus, Clause 4 of the Circular mandates that the name of a
Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion,
caste or sub-caste, and the same shall be proposed with
the general consensus.
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.
17. Admittedly, the names of the Revenue Villages,
namely Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the
names of the individuals, namely Amarram and Sagatsar.
The notification dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in
contravention of Clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009.
The State Government cannot be permitted to act in
contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it.
Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the
impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it
pertains to Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and
Sagatsar. The Division Bench failed to consider this
material aspect and erred in limiting its consideration only;
to the applicability of earlier decisions in Moola Ram and
Joga Ram (supra). In any case, the lis pending before a
Court is required to be adjudicated on merits."
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 12:04:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10458] (4 of 4) [CW-21900/2025]
6. In view of judgment passed in case of Bhika Ram (supra), it
is clear that State-Authorities are bound to allow their own policy
decision/guidelines and shall decide the issues, while strictly
following the same so also after completing necessary enquiry in
that regard. Said exercise has not been done in present case.
7. The rejection of petitioner's representation is apparently
cursory and non-speaking. This Court finds that the rejection of
petitioner's representation by District Collector, Barmer is neither
in accordance with circular issued by State Government nor in
compliance with directions passed in the cases of Mala Ram
(supra) and Bhika Ram (supra).
8. In this view of the matter, present writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 10.09.2025 is quashed and set aside.
9. Petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before
District Collector, Barmer, who is directed to decided the same
strictly in accordance as well as circular dated 17.02.2025 issued
by the State Government and the directions issued in cases of
Mala Ram (supra) and Bhika Ram (supra). District Collector,
Barmer shall pass a decision upon the representation of petitioner
within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of said
representation, after granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
10. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
155-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 12:04:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
