[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1563/2025
1. Poonma Ram S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Gram Panchayat Bhadrana, Panchayat Samiti
Sanchore, District Jalore.
2. Ratna Ram S/o Dhuda Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Gram Panchayat Bhadrana, Panchayat Samiti
Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Group-I) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector (Land Records), Jalore.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanchore, District Jalore.
5. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ms. Kanchan Jodha, for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional
Advocate General
Mr. Manish Patel, with
Ms. Nandipna Gehlot
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 26.11.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 26.11.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced: Full judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 05.01.2026
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
1. The instant D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been
preferred by the appellants claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Special
Appeal (writ) may kindly be allowed and quashed and set
aside
i. The judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11603/2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii. Further the impugned notification dated
06.04.2025, whereby the new Revenue Village 'Bhagwanji
Ki Dhani' has been created may kindly be set aside.
iii. the respondent authorities may kindly be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with
the circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025
and 06.03.2025, after deciding the objections of the
villagers; and
iv. Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the
humble petitioner."
2. At the outset this Court clarifies that the impugned judgment
dated 25.09.2025 has been rendered by the learned Single Judge
while deciding a batch of writ petitions raising a common
challenge to the creation of new Revenue Villages. However, the
present D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred only by
the appellants herein, who were petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 11603/2025, and their grievance is confined strictly to
the adjudication of their said writ petition. Accordingly, the
consideration and decision in the present appeal shall be restricted
to the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment insofar
as it pertains to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025 alone, and
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
it is clarified that the findings and conclusions recorded herein
shall not affect or govern the cases of other writ petitioners, which
were disposed of by the common judgment and are not the
subject matter of the present appeal.
3. The brief facts due to which the instant controversy has
emanated are that the appellants are residents of Gram Panchayat
Bhadrana, Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, District Jalore. In exercise
of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956, the State Government issued a notification
dated 06.04.2025, whereby a new Revenue Village, namely
'Bhagwanji Ki Dhani', came to be constituted by reorganisation of
areas falling within the jurisdiction of existing revenue villages in
the concerned region. The proposal for creation of the said
Revenue Village was processed at various administrative levels
and forwarded to the competent authority for approval, with
reference to the Government Circulars dated 20.08.2009,
17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, which lay down
guidelines and parameters for creation of new Revenue Villages.
3.1. Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the
appellants approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 11603/2025, seeking judicial review of the notification
creating the new Revenue Village. The said writ petition came to
be heard along with a batch of writ petitions raising similar
challenges to the creation and naming of newly constituted
Revenue Villages in different districts of the State. The learned
Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 25.09.2025,
dismissed the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
filed by the appellants herein, primarily on the basis that the
issues raised stood covered by an earlier judgment rendered in
Mala Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 14930/2025, decided on 23.09.2025)
3.2. Subsequent thereto, the appellants preferred the present
intra-court appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment
dated 25.09.2025 insofar as it relates to their writ petition. During
the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-State filed an
additional affidavit, inter alia, explaining the administrative basis
for the creation of the new Revenue Village and the manner in
which the distance and territorial parameters were assessed while
processing the proposal leading to issuance of the notification
dated 06.04.2025.
4. Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants,
submitted that the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2025 suffers
from manifest illegality, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge
dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025 in a mechanical
manner by applying the decision rendered in Mala Ram (supra),
without undertaking any case-specific examination of the factual
and legal issues arising in the appellants' writ petition.
4.1. It was contended that the appellants' writ petition stood on
a materially distinct factual footing, as no reply was filed by the
respondent-State therein and no contemporaneous record was
produced to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory
parameters relating to minimum population and minimum distance
between existing and proposed Revenue Villages. Learned counsel
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
urged that reliance upon assumed compliance, without calling for
records or testing the factual foundation of the notification dated
06.04.2025, resulted in denial of effective judicial scrutiny.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single
Judge erred in holding that the Government Circulars dated
20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 are merely
directory in nature. It was argued that the said circulars, issued in
exercise of the State's executive power, prescribe objective and
uniform parameters for creation of new Revenue Villages and are
intended to prevent arbitrariness and political influence in
administrative decision-making. In support, reliance was placed on
the judgments of this Court in Moola Ram v. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3470 decided on
18.02.2025) and Joga Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 7275/2025 decided on 08.05.2025),
wherein it has been held that non-compliance with such circulars
vitiates the decision-making process.
4.3. It was further submitted that even though the learned
Single Judge observed that administrative decisions are amenable
to judicial review where they are taken arbitrarily, mala fide, or in
a mechanical manner, the said principle was not applied to the
facts of the present case. According to learned counsel, despite a
specific plea that the proposed Revenue Village was created
without adherence to the prescribed distance norms, the writ
petition was dismissed without examining whether the impugned
notification satisfied the minimum statutory and administrative
requirements.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
4.4. Learned counsel specifically assailed the impugned judgment
on the ground of violation of Clause 3 of the Government Circular
dated 20.08.2009, which mandates that the minimum distance
between the headquarters of an existing Revenue Village and a
proposed new Revenue Village must be at least 1.00 kilometer. It
was contended that, in the present case, the existing Revenue
Village Bhadrana and the newly created Revenue Village
'Bhagwanji Ki Dhani' are situated within the same
Khatedari/Khasra land, and the actual distance between their
respective headquarters is virtually zero, thereby rendering the
very proposal for creation of the new Revenue Village patently
contrary to the prescribed norms.
4.5. It was urged that this factual aspect was specifically pleaded
before the learned Single Judge; however, no inquiry or
verification was undertaken, nor were the relevant records
summoned. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single
Judge, despite acknowledging the settled legal position regarding
the scope of judicial review in administrative matters, failed to
apply the same to the facts at hand.
4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that once a prima facie
breach of a mandatory distance norm was brought to the notice of
the Court, the writ petition could not have been dismissed merely
by placing reliance on a general judgment rendered in another
batch of cases. According to learned counsel, dismissal of the writ
petition without examining whether the notification dated
06.04.2025 was issued in a mechanical manner and without due
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
application of mind renders the impugned judgment internally
inconsistent.
4.7. It was also argued that the learned Single Judge erred in
treating the controversy as involving purely disputed questions of
fact, despite the appellants having placed material on record to
prima facie demonstrate violation of the prescribed norms.
Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench judgment in
Rama Ram v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 1645/2013 decided on 22.07.2013) does not bar judicial
interference where violation of mandatory guidelines is apparent
from the record itself.
4.8. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment dated
25.09.2025, insofar as it relates to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11603/2025, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the
notification dated 06.04.2025 creating the new Revenue Village
'Bhagwanji Ki Dhani' deserves to be interfered with, with
consequential directions to the respondent authorities to
reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State, submitted that the impugned judgment dated
25.09.2025 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction. It was
contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
writ petition after due consideration of the nature of the challenge
and by placing reliance on binding precedent governing the field.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the power to create, alter or
reorganise Revenue Villages flows from Section 16 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and the decision to constitute
a new Revenue Village is essentially an administrative policy
decision taken in furtherance of efficient land administration and
public convenience. It was urged that such decisions, unless
shown to be vitiated by patent arbitrariness, mala fides or
perversity, ought not to be interfered with in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
5.2. It was further submitted that the Government Circulars
dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and 06.03.2025,
relied upon by the appellants, are in the nature of executive
guidelines and do not have statutory force. According to learned
counsel, the said circulars are directory and are required to be
followed as far as possible; however, any alleged deviation
therefrom does not, by itself, render the administrative decision
invalid, particularly when the overarching objective of
administrative efficiency stands fulfilled.
5.3. Learned counsel contended that the grievance raised by the
appellants regarding alleged violation of the minimum distance
requirement involves factual determination, which was duly
undertaken at the administrative level while processing the
proposal. It was submitted that the newly created Revenue Village
'Bhagwanji Ki Dhani' has been carved out primarily from the
existing Revenue Village Kola Rabariyo Ki Dhani, and only a
limited portion of land from Vishnugarh has been included therein
for administrative convenience.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
5.4. It was urged that the relevant distance for the purposes of
the circular dated 20.08.2009 is required to be assessed with
reference to the centre point of the abadi area of the parent
Revenue Village and the newly constituted Revenue Village. When
so assessed, the prescribed minimum distance norms stand duly
satisfied. According to learned counsel, the appellants' contention
that the distance is virtually zero or that both villages fall within
the same khasra is factually incorrect and seriously disputed.
5.5. Learned counsel submitted that such disputed questions of
fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction,
particularly in the absence of unimpeachable material. It was
argued that the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in
declining to enter into a factual enquiry relating to measurement
of distance and territorial alignment.
5.6. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has
rightly followed the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Mala Ram (Supra) wherein similar challenges to the
creation and naming of new Revenue Villages were examined and
rejected. According to learned counsel, the controversy involved in
the present case stood squarely covered by the said decision and,
therefore, no separate or independent adjudication was
warranted.
5.7. Learned counsel also submitted that the reliance placed by
the appellants on the Division Bench judgments in Moola Ram
(Supra) and Joga Ram (Supra) is misconceived, as those
decisions turned on their own peculiar factual contexts and do not
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
lay down an absolute proposition that every deviation from
executive guidelines would ipso facto vitiate the administrative
action. On the contrary, reliance was placed on the Division Bench
judgment in Rama Ram(Supra), wherein it has been held that in
the absence of impeachable proof of violation of prescribed norms,
interference in matters relating to creation of Revenue Villages is
not warranted.
5.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were
not left remediless, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the writ petition, had granted liberty to the aggrieved
persons to submit representations before the competent authority,
which could be examined on the administrative side. According to
learned counsel, the approach adopted by the learned Single
Judge strikes a proper balance between judicial restraint and
administrative fairness.
5.9. Placing reliance on the additional affidavit sworn by the
Tehsildar, Sanchore, learned counsel submitted that the
appellants' challenge to the distance requirement proceeds on an
erroneous factual premise. It was contended that the affidavit
merely clarifies the administrative basis on which the proposal was
processed and approved and does not introduce any new or
extraneous justification.
5.10. It was further urged that the affidavit demonstrates due
application of mind at the administrative level and establishes that
the decision to create the new Revenue Village was taken after
considering relevant factors. According to learned counsel, the
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
said affidavit reinforces the conclusion reached by the learned
Single Judge that the appellants have failed to place any
impeachable material on record so as to warrant judicial
interference with an administrative decision taken in exercise of
statutory powers under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956.
5.11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in support of
the aforesaid submissions, placed reliance upon the following
judgments:
1. Rama Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 1645/2013 decided on 22.07.2013)
2. Arjun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025 decided on 05.08.2025)
3. Banwari Lal and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition no. 9469/2024 decided on 23.02.2015)
4. State of Punjab Vs. Tehal Singh and Ors. [(2002) 2 SCC
7]
5. State of U.P and Ors. Vs Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti
and Ors. [(1992) Supp 2 SCC 305]
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the
material available on record.
7. This Court notes, at the outset, that the power to create, alter
or reorganise Revenue Villages is traceable to Section 16 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and there can be no quarrel
with the proposition that such power is essentially administrative
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
in nature. At the same time, it is equally well settled that
administrative decisions, even when founded on policy
considerations, are not immune from judicial review where such
decisions are alleged to be arbitrary, mala fide, mechanically
taken, or in breach of binding norms governing the exercise of
such power.
8. This Court further observes that the creation of a new
Revenue Village is regulated by a series of Government Circulars,
including those dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and
06.03.2025, which prescribe parameters relating to minimum
population, minimum distance, naming conventions, and
procedural safeguards. The core controversy between the parties
centers on the nature of these circulars--whether they are merely
directory, as contended by the respondent-State, or whether
compliance therewith is mandatory, as urged on behalf of the
appellants.
9. This Court finds that the issue as to whether such circulars are
mandatory or directory cannot be answered in absolute terms
divorced from context. While it is true that the circulars do not
have statutory force in the strict sense, they nevertheless
constitute binding executive instructions issued in exercise of the
State's executive power, intended to ensure uniformity,
transparency and objectivity in the process of creation of Revenue
Villages. The judgments of this Court in Moola Ram (Supra) and
Joga Ram (Supra) have emphasized that non-compliance with
such executive norms, particularly where such non-compliance
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
results in arbitrariness or unequal treatment, may vitiate the
administrative action.
10. At the same time, this Court notes that the Division Bench in
Rama Ram (Supra) has cautioned against routine judicial
interference in matters relating to creation of Revenue Villages,
particularly where the challenge rests on disputed questions of
fact and where no impeachable material is placed on record to
demonstrate violation of prescribed norms. The jurisprudence that
emerges, therefore, is one of limited judicial review, calibrated to
intervene only where a clear and demonstrable breach of binding
norms or procedural fairness is established.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this
Court finds that the principal ground urged by the appellants
relates to alleged violation of Clause 3 of the Circular dated
20.08.2009, which prescribes a minimum distance between the
headquarters of an existing Revenue Village and a newly proposed
Revenue Village. The appellants contend that the existing Revenue
Village Bhadrana and the newly created Revenue Village
'Bhagwanji Ki Dhani' are situated within the same
khatedari/khasra land and that the distance between them is
virtually zero.
12. This Court observes that the said assertion is specifically
controverted by the respondent-State through the additional
affidavit filed by the Tehsildar, Sanchore, wherein it has been
clarified that the newly created Revenue Village has been carved
out primarily from Kola Rabariyo Ki Dhani, and that the relevant
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
distance has been assessed by measuring the centre point of the
abadi area of the parent Revenue Village and the newly
constituted Revenue Village. According to the said affidavit, when
distance is measured in the aforesaid manner, the prescribed
minimum distance requirement stands satisfied.
13. This Court finds that the dispute regarding measurement of
distance--whether it ought to be calculated from village
boundaries, khasra alignment, or centre points of abadi areas--is
essentially factual in nature and involves technical assessment
based on revenue records, maps and site conditions. In the
absence of unimpeachable material demonstrating a clear violation
of the distance norm on the face of the record, this Court is not
persuaded to substitute its own assessment for that of the
competent revenue authorities.
14. This Court further observes that the additional affidavit filed
by the respondent-State cannot be construed as an impermissible
attempt to supplement reasons post facto. Rather, the affidavit
clarifies the administrative basis on which the proposal was
processed and explains the manner in which distance norms were
understood and applied by the authorities. Such clarification,
particularly in matters involving technical revenue assessments,
cannot be said to be alien to the record or beyond the scope of
permissible explanation.
15. This Court also notes that the learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the writ petition, was cognizant of the settled legal
position that administrative decisions may be interfered with
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
where they are taken arbitrarily, mala fide, or in a mechanical
manner. However, having regard to the absence of clear and
incontrovertible material demonstrating breach of the prescribed
norms, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere and instead
granted liberty to the aggrieved persons to approach the
competent authority by way of representation.
16. This Court finds no perversity or manifest illegality in the
approach adopted by the learned Single Judge. Mere allegation of
violation of executive guidelines, without substantiation by cogent
and unimpeachable material, cannot compel the Court to
invalidate an administrative decision taken in exercise of statutory
power, particularly in matters involving reorganisation of revenue
units.
17. This Court further finds that the reliance placed by the
appellants on factual distinctions from the decision in Mala Ram &
Anr. v. State of Rajasthan does not materially alter the position,
inasmuch as the underlying legal principle governing judicial
restraint in such matters remains the same. The impugned
judgment cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, this Court
finds no merit in the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ). The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
19. It is, however, clarified that the appellants shall be at liberty
to avail the remedy of submitting a representation before the
competent authority, in terms of the liberty granted by the learned
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55246-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-1563/2025]
Single Judge, and the same shall be considered strictly in
accordance with law.
20. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:52:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
