[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakam Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3118/2025
1. Ankit Kumar Meena S/o Narayan Lal Meena, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Near Mill, Village Thana, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur.
2. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Shri Harish Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Makarjapa, Rishobdeo, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, Rajbhawan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
5. Municipal Board, Rishabdeo, Through Its Executive Officer
(Tehsildar Rishabdeo), District Udaipur.
6. Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11117/2022
1. Banshi Lal Meena S/o Shri Puja Ji Meena, Aged About 37
Years, Nichla Guda, Semari, Badawali, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Shanker Lal Meena S/o Shivram Meena, Aged About 29
Years, Sitadra, Jalampura, Kuradiya, Semari, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Narayan Lal S/o Punja Ji, Aged About 29 Years,
Darganpura, Post Semari, Tehsil Sarada, Darjanpura,
Semari, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (2 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Through Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The District Collector, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 874/2025
Gram Panchayat Balicha, Panchayat Samiti Girva District Udaipur
Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Laxmi Bai Gameti, Laxmi Bai Gameti
W/o Shri Megha Ji Gameti Aged About 65 Years R/o Balicha
Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director And Special
Secretary, Department Of Local Self , Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Municipal Corporation, Udaipur, District Udaipur Through
Commissioner.
4. Municipal Corporation, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8781/2025
1. Lokesh Kumar Gameti S/o Gamera Ji, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Matoon, Tehsil Girwa District, Udaipur.
2. Mukesh Joshi S/o Bhagwati Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Matoon, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Vimal Bhadariya S/o Khavi Lal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Bhaiyon Ki Pancholi, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
4. Gopal Dangi S/o Roop Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Dangiyon Ki Pancholi Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
5. Uday Singh Deora S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Village Parthvi Singh Ka Kheda, Post Zinc Smelter,
Tehsil Kudabad, District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Secretary,
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (3 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development And
Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Local
Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Udaipur, District Collectorate,
Udaipur,rajasthan.
5. Municipal Corporation, Udaipur Through Its Commissioner,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15765/2025
1. Bhagirath Meena S/o Nathulal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Machalaya, Post Arnod, District Pratapgarh
(Raj.)
2. Sohan Lal Meena S/o Prem Chand Meena, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Ashapura Basti, Police Station Sanghthali
Thana, Arnod, District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
4. Municipal Board, Arnod, District Pratapgarh, Through Its
Executive Officer Arnod, District Pratapgarh.
5. Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 700/2025
1. Mathura Lal S/o Gopi Lal, Aged About 71 Years,
Seesaram (Rural), Sisarma, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (4 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
2. Prithvi Raj Patel S/o Guman Patel, Aged About 64 Years,
Kalarwas, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shiv Lal Gurjar S/o Akarlal Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years,
Goardhan Vilas, Devali, Saveena (Rural), Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Director, Department Of Urban Development And
Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The District Collector, Udaipur, District Collectorate,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Municipal Commissioner, Udaipur Municipal
Corporation, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4831/2024
Shanti Lal Kalal S/o Govind, Aged About 58 Years, Kalal
Mohalla, P.o. Semari, District Udaipur, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. District Collector Udaipur, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Municipal Board Semari Through Its Executive Officer,
District Udaipur.
5. Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (5 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13334/2019
Gram Sabha, Partapur, District Banswara Through Sarpanch
Cum Chairman Of Gram Sabha Sh. Anil Kumar Tabiyar S/o Shri
Gatulal Tabiyar Age 29 Yrs R/o Village Temba Mohalla, Partapur
Panchayat Samiti Garhi District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Local Self, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. District Collector, Banswara (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11112/2022
1. Santosh Devi W/o Shri Shanti Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Moti Lal S/o Shri Hemraj Ji Meena, Aged About 42 Years,
Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Suraj Mal Lal S/o Shri Goma Ji Meena, Aged About 49
Years, Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Moti Lal S/o Shri Kalu Ji Meena, Aged About 42 Years,
Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Padma Ji, Aged About 32 Years,
Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Palu Ji Meena S/o Shri Havji Ji Meena, Aged About 48
Years, Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Kanti Lal S/o Shri Punja Ji, Aged About 32 Years, Village
Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
8. Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Bada Meena, Aged About
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (6 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
40 Years, Village Ambara, Post Kuradiya, Tehsil Semari,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Through Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The District Collector, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3748/2024
Rakam Lal S/o Dharji, Aged About 49 Years, Ward No. 17,
Mukam Vilva Pada, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Banswara (Rajasthan).
4. Municipal Board, Ghatol, Through Its Executive Officer
(Tehsildar Ghatol), District Banswara.
5. Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4872/2024
1. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Shri Harish Meena, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Makarjapa, Rishobdeo, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Mukesh Meena S/o Mavji Meena, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Rayana, P.o. Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (7 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
3. Babulal S/o Homa, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Reda Fala,
Thana, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Sanjay Kumar Meena S/o Raja Ram Meena, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Mil Ke Pass, Thana, District Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Municipal Board, Rishabhadeo, Through Its Executive
Officer (Tehsildar Rishabhadeo), District Udaipur.
5. Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5131/2024
1. Ankit Kumar Meena S/o Narayan Lal Meena, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Near Mil, Tehsil Thana, District Udaipur
2. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Laxman, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Bhauwa, District Udaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajesh Meena S/o Bheemraj Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Tehsil Thana, District Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Local Self,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Director Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. District Collector, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Municipal Board Rishabhadeo, Through Its Executive
Officer Tehsildar Rishabhadeo, District Udaipur
5. Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (8 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8470/2024
Ramlal S/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Shikarwadi,
Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Local Self
Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Pratapgarh.
5. Municipality (Class-Iv), Dhariyawad Through Its
Executive Officer, District Pratapgarh.
6. Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23310/2025
(Reserved on 18.12.2025)
1. Pushkar Lal Meena S/o Mohan Ji, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Katya Fala Alsigarh Tehsil Barapal, Girwa,
District Udaipur Rajasthan.
2. Anil Meena S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Undari Khurd, Tehsil Barapal, Girwa, District Udaipur
Rajasthan.
3. Ramesh Lal S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Khan Phala, Chokdiya, Tehsil Barapal, Girwa, District
Udaipur Rajasthan.
4. Virmal S/o Shri Nakku Meena, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Naya Khera Tehsil Barapal, Girwa, District
Udaipur Rajasthan.
5. Panna Lal Meena S/o Shri Hakra Lal, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Village Nora Tehsil Barapal, Girwa,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/01/2026 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (9 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Local Self Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Urban Development,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority Udaipur
Rajasthan.
4. District Collector, Udaipur Rajasthan.
5. Gram Panchayat Alsigarh, Panchayat Samiti Girwa
District Udaipur Rajasthan Through Its Development
Officer.
6. Gram Panchayat Undari Khurd, Panchayat Samiti Girwa
District Udaipur Rajasthan Through Its Development
Officer.
7. Gram Panchayat Chokdiya, Panchayat Samiti Girwa
District Udaipur Rajasthan Through Its Development
Officer.
8. Gram Panchayat Naya Khera, Panchayat Samiti Girwa
District Udaipur Rajasthan Through Its Development
Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
Mr. Siddharth Mewara
Mr. Ramawtar Singh
Dr. Pratishtha Dave
Mr. Pranjul Mehta
Mr. Sharad Kothari (through VC)
Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
Mr. Abhishek Pareek
Mr. Ripudaman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Mr. Pawan Bharti for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Anurag Shukla
Mr. Arpit Samariya & Mr. Ram Awtar
Sikhwal, AGC for Mr. Nathu Singh
Rathore, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (10 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 25.11.2025 & 18.12.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 25.11.2025 & 18.12.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 05.01.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
Scheduled Areas are constitutionally protected,
but not constitutionally frozen.
1. The present batch of writ petitions namely, D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 3118/2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11117/2022,
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 874/2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
8781/2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15765/2025, D.B. Civil
Petition No. 700/2025, D.B. Civil Petition No. 4831/2024, D.B. Civil
Petition No. 13334/2019, D.B. Civil Petition No. 11112/2022, D.B.
Civil Petition No. 3748/2024, D.B. Civil Petition No. 4872/2024,
D.B. Civil Petition No.5131/2024, D.B. Civil Petition No.
8470/2024, reserved on 25.11.2025 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 23310/2025 reserved on 18.12.2025, assail the legality,
validity and constitutional permissibility of Notifications issued by
the State Government. By the said notifications, the State, while
purporting to exercise powers under Section 3 read with Section
329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act of 2009'), has, inter alia, included the Scheduled
Area of various villages/gram panchayats within the territorial
limits of the Municipal Corporation. Due to the commonality of
assailment, the writ petitions mentioned hereinabove are being
decided together.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (11 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
1.1. At the outset, for the sake of brevity and convenience, in the
present adjudication, a tabular chart depicting the particulars
regarding the assailment herein, is as follows:
S.No. C.W. Petition No. Date of Action Taken
Impugned
Notification
1. D.B. Civil Petition 24.06.2022 Panchayat Circle
No. 3118/2025 Rishabdeo (Scheduled
Area) declared Municipal
Area to establish Municipal
Board Rishabdeo (IV
class).
2. D.B. Civil Petition 05.07.2022 Four revenue villages
No. 11117/2022 namely Semari, Lalpuriya,
Bhahmpuri and
Darjanpura under the
jurisdiction of Gram
Panchayat Semari
(Kherwada), five villages
namely Jagatpuriya,
Jalampura, Narayanpura,
Kuradiya and Ambara
under the jurisdiction of
Gram Panchayat Kuradiya,
seven revenue villages
namely Shyampura,
Jodhpuriya, Bhimpur,
Bagthala, Junpuriya,
Upalaguda, and
Nichlaguda under the
jurisdiction of Gram
Panchayat Shyampura,
one revenue village
namely Dhani of Gram
Panchayat Kunda (all
Scheduled Areas) are
proposed to be included in
new Nagar Palika Semari.
3. D.B. Civil Petition 26.12.2024 Revenue village Balicha,
No. 874/2025 Gram Panchayat Balicha
circle Girva has been
included in Municipal area
limits of Udaipur Municipal
Corporation.
4. D.B. Civil Petition 25.03.2025 Inclusion of Gram
No. 8781/2025 Panchayats Bhaiyon ki
Pancholi, Matoon, Manwa
Kheda, Dhikli, Amberi,
Zinc Smelter and border
area of Nalafala (all
Scheduled Areas) in the
area of Municipal
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (12 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Corporation, Udaipur.
5. D.B. Civil Petition 27.03.2025 Gram Panchayat Arnod
No. 15765/2025 has been declared as
Municipal Area (Municipal
Board Arnod (IV class)).
6. D.B. Civil Petition 26.12.2024 Gram Panchayat Baleecha,
No. 700/2025 Bhoeyon ki Pancholi,
Dakan Kotra, Debari,
Kalarwas, Kanpur,
Saweena Khera (rural),
Seesaram (Rural) and
Teetardi of girwa Block,
Udaipur District included in
the jurisdiction of
Municipal Corporation.
7. D.B. Civil Petition 05.10.2023 Panchayat Circle Semari
No. 4831/2024 have been declared
Municipal Area and
Municipal Board Semari
(IV class) has been
established.
8. D.B. Civil Petition 30.05.2018 Panchayat circle Partapur,
No. 13334/2019 Garhi, Bedva, Kheran ka
Pada and Bagora have
been declared Municipal
area and Municipal board
Partapur (IV class) has
been established.
9. D.B. Civil Petition 05.07.2022 Revenue Village Ambara
No. 11112/2022 and Jalampura of Gram
Panchayat, Kuradiya will
be converted into a
Municipality.
10. D.B. Civil Petition 05.10.2023 Panchayat Circle Ghatol
No. 3748/2024 have been declared
Municipal Area and
Municipal board Maharana
Pratap (IV class) have
been established.
11. D.B. Civil Petition 24.06.2024 Panchayat circle Rishabdeo
No. 4872/2024 have been declared
Municipal area and
Municipal board Rishabdeo
(IV class) has been
established.
12. D.B. Civil Petition 24.06.2022, Panchayat circle
No.5131/2024 29.07.2022, Rishabdeo, Dhulev, Bhaua
14.09.2022 and Gram Panchayat
Thana have been declared
Municipal area and
Municipal board Rishabdeo
(IV class) has been
established.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (13 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
13. D.B. Civil Petition 23.05.2022 Gram Panchayat
No. 8470/2024 Dhariyawad has been
declared as Municipality
(IV class).
14. D.B. Civil Writ 28.05.2025 Village named Chokidya,
Petition No. Undari Khurd, Naya Khera,
23310/2025 Nora and Alsigarh have
been included within the
Udaipur Development
Authority region.
1.2. Since all the instant writ petitions arise out of a common
controversy, though with minor variations in individual factual
settings, this Court considers it appropriate, for the purpose of
analogous adjudication, to treat D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
874/2025 (Gram Panchayat Balicha, Panchayat Samiti Girva,
District Udaipur through its Sarpanch Smt. Laxmi Bai Gameti v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as the lead case. Accordingly, the
factual matrix, prayers and legal submissions are being noticed
with reference to the said lead petition. The submissions advanced
by the parties and the findings recorded herein shall, unless
otherwise specifically indicated, govern and apply to all the
connected writ petitions.
1.3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 874/2025 (Gram Panchayat
Balicha, Panchayat Samiti Girva, District Udaipur through its
Sarpanch Smt. Laxmi Bai Gameti v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
was filed claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may
kindly be allowed.
◦ That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued
and the notification dated 17.06.2022 issued by is
Excellency Hon'ble governor of the Rajasthan (Annexure-
5), may kindly be declare highly illegal;, unconstitutional
and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (14 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
◦ That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued
and the declaration may kindly be made that the provision
of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 2009 is not applicable in the
area specified under the 5th Schedule of the Constitution of
India as called TSP Area of the State of Rajasthan.
◦ That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in
State of Rajasthan , by which the petitioner may get full
justice may also be allowed."
2. The present controversy, insofar as it concerns Village
Balicha, arises from the issuance of the impugned Notification
dated 26.12.2024 by the State Government, whereby Revenue
Village Balicha, falling within Gram Panchayat Balicha, Panchayat
Samiti Girva, District Udaipur, was brought within the territorial
limits of the Udaipur Municipal Corporation in purported exercise
of powers under Section 3 read with Section 329 of the Act of
2009. Significantly, Village Balicha stands expressly notified as a
Scheduled Area under the Scheduled Areas (State of Rajasthan)
Order, 2018 (Constitution Order No. 270) issued under Article
244(1) of the Constitution of India, and its scheduled status is
thus constitutionally secured and undisputed.
2.1. The impugned action was preceded by a State-wide urban
delimitation exercise initiated by the Local Self Government
Department vide directive dated 22.11.2024, calling for
identification of areas perceived to have acquired urban
characteristics warranting their inclusion within municipal limits. In
compliance therewith, the District Collector, Udaipur, after
undertaking a comprehensive assessment of demographic trends,
land-use patterns, existing infrastructure, spatial contiguity with
urban areas and ground-level conditions, forwarded a proposal
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (15 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
recommending inclusion of Village Balicha within municipal
jurisdiction. The said recommendation was reinforced by the
report of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur dated
27.11.2024, which recorded increasing population density, mixed
land use, proximity to existing municipal boundaries and growing
dependence of the local population upon urban civic amenities.
Upon due consideration and approval at multiple administrative
levels, the State Government proceeded to issue the impugned
notification, thereby subjecting Village Balicha to municipal
governance, an action which has been assailed before this Hon'ble
Court as being constitutionally impermissible in view of the special
governance regime applicable to Scheduled Areas under Article
244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned Notification dated 26.12.2024, whereby Village
Balicha has been included within the limits of the Udaipur
Municipal Corporation, is unconstitutional, without authority of law
and liable to be quashed, as it violates the special constitutional
regime governing Scheduled Areas under Article 244(1) read with
the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
3.1. It was pointed out that Village Balicha stands expressly
notified as a Scheduled Area and once an area is so notified, it
immediately attracts the exclusive constitutional framework
applicable to Scheduled Areas. From that moment, the operation
of Part IX-A of the Constitution stands automatically excluded by
virtue of Article 243-ZC(1), and the State Legislature
correspondingly loses legislative competence to apply municipal
laws, which derive their source from Part IX-A, to such territory.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (16 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that Scheduled Areas are not
merely territorially identified regions, but constitutionally insulated
areas governed by a distinct protective framework. Article 244(1)
read with the Fifth Schedule constitutes a self-contained code for
their administration, consciously placing them outside the ordinary
legislative and executive regime applicable to the rest of the
State.
3.3.It was emphasized that Article 243-ZC(1) expressly provides
that "Nothing in this Part shall apply to the Scheduled Areas
referred to in clause (1) of Article 244." This provision creates a
complete constitutional prohibition against the operation of the
municipal regime in Scheduled Areas. Consequently, no
municipality can be legally constituted, extended or operated
within a Scheduled Area unless Parliament itself removes this
prohibition in the manner contemplated by the Constitution.
3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Constitution
recognizes only two legally permissible modes for extending
municipal governance to Scheduled Areas: first, by a law enacted
by Parliament under Article 243-ZC(3), extending Part IX-A with
such exceptions and modifications as may be specified; and
second, by a direction of the Governor under Article 244(1) read
with paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule, applying a State law to a
Scheduled Area with or without modifications. Admittedly, neither
constitutional route has been followed in the present case. No
parliamentary enactment exists, and no order or notification has
been issued by the Governor permitting the application of the Act
of 2009 to Village Balicha. In the absence thereof, the State
Legislature lacks legislative competence to apply municipal laws to
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (17 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
the said Scheduled Area, and any executive action attempting to
do so is ultra vires the Constitution.
3.5. Learned counsel drew support from the constitutional
scheme relating to Panchayati Raj institutions. Article 243-M(1)
similarly barred the application of Part IX to Scheduled Areas, and
that bar was lifted only when Parliament enacted the Panchayats
(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. In contrast, no
corresponding parliamentary enactment exists extending
municipal governance under Part IX-A to Scheduled Areas. Hence,
the constitutional prohibition continues to operate with full force,
rendering the impugned notification constitutionally impermissible.
3.6. It was further contended that the State's plea that the Act of
2009, being a successor to the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959,
would automatically apply to Scheduled Areas unless expressly
excluded by the Governor, is legally untenable. Each statute is an
independent legislative exercise, and its applicability to Scheduled
Areas must be tested afresh in light of paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule. Acceptance of the theory of automatic application would
negate the constitutional role assigned to the Governor and dilute
the safeguards intended for Scheduled Areas.
3.7. Learned counsel also submitted that reliance placed by the
respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Adivasi for Social & Human Rights Action v. Union of India,
(Civil Appeal No. 2202 of 2012, decided on 10.05.2023) is
misconceived. The said judgment did not deal with, nor approve,
the inclusion or conversion of Scheduled Areas into municipal
areas, and does not dilute the express constitutional bar under
Article 243-ZC(1). The ratio of the said decision, rendered in a
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (18 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
different factual and legal context, has no application to the
controversy involved in the present case.
3.8. Lastly, it was urged that the impugned notification entails
serious civil, administrative and economic consequences, including
changes in land-use regulation, taxation and governance
structures, which directly impinge upon the constitutionally
protected rights of the inhabitants of Village Balicha. Such
consequences cannot be brought about by executive action under
a general municipal statute, in the face of explicit constitutional
prohibitions governing Scheduled Areas.
3.9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No.s 84-85 of 2016, & other connected
matters, decided on 21.09.2023).
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the impugned Notification dated 26.12.2024 has been issued
in lawful exercise of statutory powers conferred upon the State
Government under Section 3 read with Section 329 of the Act of
2009, and does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity so as
to warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that Article 243-ZC of the
Constitution does not operate as an absolute or blanket prohibition
against the application of municipal governance in Scheduled
Areas. It was contended that the said provision must be read
harmoniously with Article 244(1) and the Fifth Schedule, which
together constitute the governing constitutional framework for
Scheduled Areas. When so read, Article 243-ZC merely excludes
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (19 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
the automatic application of Part IX-A, but does not prohibit the
State from exercising powers under a validly enacted municipal
law, unless such law stands excluded or modified in the manner
contemplated under the Fifth Schedule.
4.2. It was further submitted that paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule confers plenary constitutional powers upon the
Governor, enabling him to direct that any Act of Parliament or of
the State Legislature shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or shall
apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be specified.
The cumulative constitutional scheme and consistent judicial
interpretation of paragraph 5 establish that unless the Governor,
by a formal notification, excludes or modifies the operation of a
law, all Central and State laws of general application continue to
apply to Scheduled Areas by default. In the present case, no
notification has been issued by the Governor excluding or
modifying the applicability of the Act of 2009 to Village Balicha.
4.3. Learned counsel submitted that judicial precedents
interpreting paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule consistently
recognise the enabling and regulatory nature of the Governor's
power, and not its character as an automatic bar on the
application of general laws. Thus, the legal position emerging from
the constitutional scheme and authoritative pronouncements is
that Scheduled Areas are not legal enclaves immune from all State
legislation, but are subject to such legislation unless specifically
excluded or modified in accordance with the Fifth Schedule.
4.4. It was contended that the inclusion of Village Balicha within
the limits of the Udaipur Municipal Corporation has been effected
strictly in accordance with Section 3 of the Act of 2009, which
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (20 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
empowers the State Government to alter municipal limits as a
matter of legislative policy. Such exercise is statutory in nature
and does not attract the requirement of compliance with the
principles of audi alteram partem. Reliance was placed on the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok
Khetoliya & Anr., (2022) 3 SCC 295, wherein it has been held
that alteration of municipal limits is a policy decision taken in
exercise of legislative power and does not entail individual civil
consequences requiring prior hearing.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the scope of judicial
review over policy decisions relating to urban planning, municipal
expansion and territorial re-organisation is extremely limited. The
impugned notification, having been issued in furtherance of
planned urban development and administrative efficiency, does
not warrant judicial interference.
4.6. It was also contended that the petitioners proceed on a
misconception regarding the scope and applicability of the
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).
PESA operates in the domain of Panchayati Raj institutions under
Part IX of the Constitution and does not create a constitutional
embargo on municipal administration in Scheduled Areas. The
existence of PESA cannot be construed to imply a prohibition on
urban governance mechanisms, particularly in areas undergoing
urbanisation, nor does it override the State's statutory powers
under the Act of 2009.
4.7. Learned counsel submitted that the scheduled status of
Village Balicha remains unaffected by its inclusion within municipal
limits, and all constitutional and statutory safeguards available to
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (21 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Scheduled Tribes continue to subsist. The impugned notification
neither extinguishes tribal rights nor dilutes the protective
framework under the Fifth Schedule, and apprehensions relating
to land use, taxation or governance are speculative and
premature.
4.8. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents contended that the impugned Notification dated
26.12.2024 has been issued in accordance with law, within the
bounds of constitutional permissibility, and in furtherance of
legitimate policy objectives, and therefore, the writ petitions are
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
4.9. In support of the submissions learned counsel relied on the
following judgments:
(i) Adivasis for Social and human Rights Action v. UOI & Ors.,
(Civil Appeal No. 2202 of 2012, decided on 10.05.2023)
(ii) Debashish Soren & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand (W.P.(C)
No. 3615,3627,4579 of 2007, decided on 02.11.2007)
(iii) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No. 2035 of 1971, decided on 19.12.1975)
(iv) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012, decided on 08.11.2012)
(v) Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002, decided on 22.04.2020)
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
cases cited at the Bar.
6. At the outset this Court finds it appropriate to explain the
concept of 'Scheduled Areas'.
6.1. The concept of Scheduled Areas is not a mere administrative
classification but a constitutional device evolved to secure the
political, economic and cultural autonomy of India's tribal
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (22 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
communities. Article 244 of the Constitution of India constitutes
the primary gateway for the governance of such areas, mandating
that the administration of Scheduled Areas in States other than
Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram shall be regulated
exclusively by the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule, while
the Sixth Schedule governs the latter group of States.
6.2. This Court further observes that Scheduled Areas presently
cover approximately 11.3% of the total geographical area of India
and are inhabited by 8.6% of the country's population belonging
to Scheduled Tribes. These areas have been notified in ten States,
namely, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra
and Himachal Pradesh, and represent constitutionally recognised
zones of special governance designed to protect communities
historically subjected to social and economic marginalisation.
6.3. This Court observes that the governance architecture under
the Fifth Schedule is distinct and self-contained. The Governor of
the State occupies a pivotal constitutional role and is entrusted
with special responsibilities to modify, restrict or prohibit the
application of ordinary State laws in Scheduled Areas and to frame
regulations for peace, good governance, land protection and
control of moneylending. Such powers reflect the Constitution's
deliberate departure from uniform administration in favour of
context-sensitive governance for tribal regions.
6.4. This Court further observes that the Fifth Schedule
establishes a mandatory institutional safeguard in the form of the
Tribal Advisory Council, comprising predominantly of Scheduled
Tribe representatives, to advise the Governor on all matters
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (23 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
relating to tribal welfare. The Governor is further constitutionally
obligated to submit an annual report to the President on the
administration of Scheduled Areas, thereby creating a continuous
chain of constitutional supervision.
7. This Court observes that the present batch of writ petitions
raises a substantive constitutional challenge to notifications issued
by the State Government under Section 3 read with Section 329 of
the Act of 2009, whereby several villages and Gram Panchayat
areas, admittedly falling within Scheduled Areas notified as such
under Para 6(2) of the Fifth Schedule by President, have been
included within municipal limits. The controversy is therefore not
merely statutory in nature, but strikes at the very framework of
governance specially designed for Scheduled Areas under the
Constitution, including the principles of tribal self-governance,
necessitating an examination of the scheme embodied in Article
244(1), the Fifth Schedule and Article 243-ZC, and their interplay
with State law.
8. Upon consideration of the material on record, this Court finds
that the following issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether a Scheduled Area notified under the Fifth
Schedule can be included within municipal limits under the
Act of 2009;
(ii) What is the true scope and effect of Article 243-ZC in
relation to Scheduled Areas;
(iii) Whether such municipal inclusion denudes the area of
its constitutional protections under the Fifth Schedule and
allied constitutional guarantees.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (24 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
(iv) Whether the inclusion of a Scheduled Area within
municipal limits under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 results in cessation of the applicability of the
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
(PESA), having regard to the altered territorial character of
the area from "village" to "municipal area.
Issue No.1:
9. This Court observes that under Entry 5 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule, the State Legislature is competent to enact
laws governing municipalities, and the Act of 2009 has been
enacted in exercise of such legislative competence, extending to
the whole of the State of Rajasthan, excluding only cantonment
areas.
9.1. This Court observes that a conjoint reading of Section 3 and
Section 329 of the Act of 2009 manifests a comprehensive
statutory framework by which the State Government is vested
with authority to create, constitute, include, exclude, amalgamate,
split and otherwise alter municipal areas by issuance of
notification in the Official Gazette. Such power extends not only to
the initial declaration of a municipal area but also to its
subsequent territorial reconfiguration in response to
administrative, demographic and developmental considerations.
9.1. This Court further observes that Section 3(1) confers upon
the State a wide delimitation jurisdiction, authorising it to declare
any local area as a Municipality, to modify municipal boundaries,
and to effect structural changes including amalgamation,
bifurcation or dissolution of municipalities. This Court further notes
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (25 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
that Section 3(10) gives overriding effect to the delimitation power
by providing that its operation shall prevail notwithstanding
anything contained in the Act itself, the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994, or any other law for the time being in force.
9.2. This Court further observes that Section 329 complements
this framework by empowering the State Government to classify
Municipalities, divide them into different classes based on income,
population, importance of the local area and other relevant
factors, and to transfer a Municipality from one class to another.
This classification power enables rational administrative
organisation and uniform service conditions across similarly
situated municipal bodies, thereby promoting efficiency and
standardisation in municipal administration. This Court is of the
considered view that the statutory powers under Sections 3 and
329 together constitute a plenary administrative authority of the
State over the territorial and institutional architecture of
municipalities.
9.3. This Court observes that although Sections 3 and 329 of the
Act of 2009 confer wide authority upon the State Government to
create, include, exclude and otherwise alter municipal areas, the
exercise of such power, in the present factual matrix, gives rise to
a complex constitutional intersection when the territory concerned
falls within a Scheduled Area governed by the special
constitutional regime under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth
Schedule.
10. This Court observes that the constitutional scheme under
Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule does not place
Scheduled Areas outside the reach of all State legislation. On the
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (26 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
contrary, the Fifth Schedule itself creates a regulated
constitutional mechanism whereby laws of general application
enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature continue to operate
in Scheduled Areas, unless and until they are excluded or modified
in the manner expressly provided under paragraph 5(1) of the
Fifth Schedule.
10.1. This Court further observes that paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule does not operate as a condition precedent for the
applicability of a statute to a Scheduled Area. The power conferred
upon the Governor thereunder is exclusionary or modificatory in
character. The constitutional default, therefore, is the continuance
and applicability of existing law, and not its suspension, unless the
Governor, in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(1), issues a
notification excluding the application of such law or applying it
subject to specified exceptions or modifications.
10.1.1. This Court further observes that no notification under
paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule either excluding or modifying
the application of the concerned statute to the Scheduled Areas
has been placed on record. In the absence of such a notification,
the Act of 2009 continues to operate within the Scheduled Areas
as a valid and effective legislation enacted under Entry 5 of List II.
However, such applicability does not denude the Act of 2009 from
constitutional scrutiny; rather, its operation within Scheduled
Areas remains subject to, and must conform with, the protective
scheme and constitutional safeguards embodied in the Fifth
Schedule.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (27 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
10.1.2. Further, this legal position now stands conclusively settled
by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2003) 8
SCC 648. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
"11. The Fifth Schedule contains provisions for the
administration and control of Scheduled Areas and
Scheduled Tribes. Paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule, inter
alia, provides that the Governor of each State having
Scheduled Areas shall annually or whenever so required by
the President make a report to the President regarding the
administration of the Scheduled Areas in the State and the
executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of
directions to the State as to the administration of the said
areas. Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule is in the following
terms:
"5. Law applicable to Scheduled Areas.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the
Governor may by public notification direct that any
particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of
the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any
part thereof in the State or shall apply to a Scheduled
Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such
exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the
notification and any direction given under this
subparagraph may be given so as to have
retrospective effect.
(2) The Governor may make regulations for the peace and
good government of any area in a State which is for the time
being a Scheduled Area. In particular and without prejudice
to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations
may-
(a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among
members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area;
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (28 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
(b) regulate the allotment of land to members of the
Scheduled Tribes in such area;
(c) regulate the carrying on of business as money-lender by
persons who lend money to members of the Scheduled
Tribes in such area.
(3) In making any such regulation as is referred to in
subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the Governor may
repeal or amend any Act of Parliament or of the Legislature
of the State or any existing law which is for the time being
applicable to the area in question.
(4) All regulations made under this paragraph shall be
submitted forthwith to the President and, until assented to
by him, shall have no effect.
(5) No regulation shall be made under this paragraph unless
the Governor making the regulation has, in the case where
there is a Tribes Advisory Council for the State, consulted
such Council.
12. Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule commences with
a non obstante provision. It empowers the Governor
to direct that any Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled
Area or a part of it in the State. The second
component of clause (1) of Paragraph 5 empowers the
Governor to direct that an Act of Parliament or of the
State Legislature shall apply to a Scheduled Area or
any part in the State subject to such exceptions and
modifications as he may specify in the notification.
13. The High Court in the present case has observed that
the appellant did not produce any notification indicating that
the statutes in question would not apply to the Scheduled
Areas in the State of Madhya Pradesh or that their provisions
would apply with exceptions and modifications disabling the
power of the municipality to levy a tax. Even before this
Court, no such notification has been produced.
The consequence of paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule is that it enables the Governor to direct
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (29 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
either that a parliamentary or state law shall not apply
to a Scheduled Area in the State or that it would apply
subject to exceptions and modifications. Therefore,
unless a notification has been issued by the Governor
indicating that (I) a parliamentary or state law shall have no
application to the Scheduled Area; or (ii) the parliamentary
or state legislation would apply subject to exceptions or
modifications, there would be no hindrance in the application
of the law to the State."
10.2.This Court is also conscious of the Constitution Bench
judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of A.P.,
[(2020) 8 SCC 404, decided on 22.04.2020], that further
clarified that the Governor's power under paragraph 5(1) does not
confer independent legislative authority. It merely enables
exclusion or modification of existing law in order to protect tribal
interests, without disturbing legislative certainty. Relevant portion
of the judgment is as follows:
"51. We are of the opinion that the Governor's power to
make new law is not available in view of the clear
language of Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule does not recognise
or confer such power, but only power is not to apply the
law or to apply it with exceptions or modifications. Thus,
notification is ultra vires to Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the
Constitution."
10.3.This Court is also conscious that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
(supra) was reaffirmed in Adivasis for Social & Human Rights
Action v. Union of India (2023), wherein it was authoritatively
held that paragraph 5(1) is an exclusionary and modificatory
power and not a condition precedent for the application of law. In
the absence of such exclusion, the law continues to operate. The
relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (30 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
"15. Coming to the plea of the petitioner that any
Act of the Parliament or the State Legislature has
to be made applicable to the Scheduled Areas by
public notification to be issued by the Governor of
State, under Part 'B' of the Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution, in order to make the same operative
in the Scheduled Area, the same is equally
fallacious and misconceived and deserves outright
rejection. What is provided under sub-clause (1)
of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule is that the
Governor is empowered, notwithstanding
anything in the Constitution, to direct that any
particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature
of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or
shall apply to a Scheduled Area subject to such
exceptions or modifications, as the Governor may
specify in the notification. Hence, only if any
Central or State Act is not to be applied to a
Scheduled Area or is to be applied to a Scheduled
Area, subject to such exceptions and modification,
the Governor of the State may specify the same in
the notification. Hence, by necessary implication,
it cannot be said that all Acts of the Parliament or
the State Legislature can only apply to a
Scheduled Area, if there is a notification to that
effect by the Governor of the State. See --Ram
Kripal Bhagat v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 951."
10.4.This Court therefore rejects the submission that the mere
notification of an area as a Scheduled Area creates an absolute
constitutional embargo on the application of State legislation.
Such an interpretation would render paragraph 5(1) otiose and
would contradict the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10.5.This Court further observes that no material has been placed
on record to demonstrate the existence of any notification issued
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (31 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
by the Governor under paragraph 5(1) excluding or modifying the
application of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 in respect of
Village Balicha. In the absence of such constitutional intervention,
the statutory regime enacted by the State Legislature continues to
operate by its own force.
10.6.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that a
Scheduled Area notified under the Fifth Schedule can, in law, be
included within municipal limits under the Rajasthan Municipalities
Act, 2009, so long as there exists no notification issued by the
Governor under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule excluding or
modifying the operation of the said Act in respect of such area.
The mere constitutional status of an area as a Scheduled Area
does not, by itself, create an absolute embargo on the application
of State legislation, nor does it divest the State Government of its
statutory authority under Sections 3 and 329 of the Act of 2009 to
reorganise municipal territories.
10.7.This Court further holds that the special constitutional regime
governing Scheduled Areas regulates the manner and limits of
governance, but does not suspend the operation of validly enacted
State law in the absence of a constitutionally sanctioned exclusion.
Consequently, the impugned notification dated 26.12.2024,
whereby Village Balicha has been included within the limits of the
Udaipur Municipal Corporation, cannot be declared
unconstitutional merely on the ground that the territory concerned
is a Scheduled Area, in the absence of any exclusionary or
modificatory notification issued by the Governor under paragraph
5(1) of the Fifth Schedule.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (32 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Issue No.2:
11. This Court observes that Article 243-ZC(1) embodies a
deliberate constitutional choice that "Nothing in Part IX-A shall
apply to the Scheduled Areas". The immediate effect of this
provision is that the constitutional framework governing
municipalities does not operate ex proprio vigore within Scheduled
Areas. The exclusion is structural and protective in nature,
intended to prevent the automatic and mechanical extension of
urban municipal governance into territories constitutionally set
apart for special treatment and protection of tribal communities.
11.1.This Court further observes that the exclusion created by
Article 243-ZC is limited in its operation and precise in its scope.
It disables only the constitutional mandate of Part IX-A; it
does not invalidate, suspend or prohibit the operation of
State municipal legislation per se, as clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra). Thus,
the consequence of Article 243-ZC is confined to the inapplicability
of Part IX-A, while legislative competence of the State remains
intact, subject to the overriding control of Article 244 and the Fifth
Schedule. Relevant portion of the judgment are as follows:
"16. The impact of Article 243-ZC is that Part IXA has
no application to a Scheduled Area. The inapplicability
of article 243X did not denude the state legislature to
enact legislation for the State. A Scheduled Area
governed by Article 244 of the Constitution is subject
to the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule
which govern the administration and control of
Scheduled Areas or Scheduled Tribes.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (33 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Paragraph 5 confers a power on the Governor, as
noted above, to direct either that parliamentary or
state law shall not apply in the Schedule Area or that
it would apply subject to such exceptions or
modifications as may be specified."
11.2. This Court therefore clarifies that Article 243-ZC does not
create a constitutional vacuum in Scheduled Areas. It does not
prohibit the existence of municipal administration; rather, it
ensures that any form of municipal governance in such areas is
not constitutionally presumed or imposed, but must operate within
the disciplined framework of the Fifth Schedule.
11.3. This Court observes that the constitutional design thus
erects a two-stage protective filter:
(i) Article 243-ZC restrains the automatic application of the
municipal constitutional framework contained in Part IXA; and
(ii) Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule supplies the
controlling regulatory mechanism for all legislative and executive
action in Scheduled Areas.
Together, they ensure that governance of Scheduled Areas
remains constitutionally differentiated, carefully calibrated and
normatively distinct from ordinary territorial administration.
11.4.This Court accordingly holds that the true effect of Article
243-ZC is not prohibition but protection, protection of Scheduled
Areas from unmediated constitutional municipalisation, while
preserving the authority of the State to legislate and administer,
strictly subject to the constitutional discipline imposed by the Fifth
Schedule.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (34 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
12. Thus, this Court finds that Articles 244(1), 243-ZC and the
Fifth Schedule must be read harmoniously. The resulting
constitutional position is clear:
The Constitution guards Scheduled Areas, but it does not
fossilise them.
They are governed through calibrated constitutional supervision,
not permanent insulation from lawful governance.
Issue No.3:
13. This Court further observes that the inclusion of an area
within municipal limits does not denotify or dilute its constitutional
status as a Scheduled Area, which flows exclusively from a
Presidential notification under Paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule
and cannot be altered by executive or statutory re-classification.
The act of declaring or constituting a municipal area does not,
either expressly or by necessary implication, extinguish the special
constitutional position of a Scheduled Area or the obligations
attached thereto. All safeguards under the Fifth Schedule, the role
of the Tribes Advisory Council, and the protective and
developmental commitments flowing from Articles 46 and 275(1),
including those operationalised through the Tribal Sub-Plan,
continue to operate with full force. These constitutionally
entrenched duties adhere to the territory and its people by
command of the Constitution itself and are not contingent upon
the form of local self-governance. Consequently, while
municipalisation may alter the structure of civic administration, it
cannot abrogate, suspend, or dilute the continuing constitutional
responsibilities of the State towards Scheduled Tribes, nor can it
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (35 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
be permitted to erode the special status and protections which the
Constitution confers upon Scheduled Areas.
Issue No.4:
14. This Court observes that Parliament, by enacting the
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA),
operationalised the philosophy underlying the Fifth Schedule by
extending Part IX to Scheduled Areas with mandatory exceptions
and modifications, thereby transforming constitutional protection
into a living framework of participatory self-governance.
14.1.PESA places the Gram Sabha at the normative centre of
Scheduled Area governance and vests it with decisive authority
over customary law, community resources, cultural identity, land
relations, minor forest produce, local dispute resolution and
development priorities. This institutional design represents a
constitutional expression of tribal self-rule within the Indian
federal structure and affirms the commitment that development in
Scheduled Areas must remain community-centred and culturally
anchored.
14.2.This Court further observes that the introduction of municipal
governance into Scheduled Areas necessarily generates a
constitutional tension between two governance paradigms: the
urban municipal model under Part IX-A and the tribal self-
governance model under the Fifth Schedule and PESA.
15. This Court notes that the constitutional extension of Part IX
(Panchayats) to Scheduled Areas through the Panchayats
(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) proceeds on the
foundational assumption that the concerned territory continues to
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (36 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
be administered as a "village" and "Panchayat area" within the
meaning of Articles 243 and 243B of the Constitution. PESA, by its
very structure, is designed to strengthen Gram Sabha-centric
governance in rural tribal habitations.
15.1.This Court further observes that once a Scheduled Area, or
any part thereof, is lawfully included within municipal limits under
the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, the territorial character of
that area undergoes a legal transformation. It ceases to be a
"village" and a "Panchayat area" for the purposes of Part IX, and
becomes part of an urban local body governed by the municipal
statute. Consequently, the institutional framework of PESA, which
operates through village-level Panchayats and Gram Sabhas,
cannot continue in its full operational form within such municipal
territory.
15.2.This Court, however, clarifies that such municipal inclusion
does not extinguish the constitutional status of the area as a
Scheduled Area under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule,
nor does it denude the inhabitants of the protections flowing
therefrom. The Fifth Schedule continues to govern the
administration and control of the territory, and the special
responsibilities of the Governor under paragraph 5 remain intact.
16. At this juncture, this Court expresses serious constitutional
concern over the continued absence of a Parliamentary enactment
extending the municipal framework of Part IX-A to Scheduled
Areas, notwithstanding the express constitutional pathway
provided under Article 243-ZC(3). This inaction assumes particular
significance where the State itself has recognised that certain
Scheduled Areas satisfy the criteria ordinarily governing urban
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (37 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
governance. In the present case, the State, upon due
consideration of relevant parameters such as demographic trends,
land-use patterns, availability of civic infrastructure, spatial
contiguity with adjoining urban areas, and prevailing ground-level
conditions, has forwarded a proposal recommending the inclusion
of Village Balicha within municipal limits.
16.1.Moreover, the official communication issued by the
Government of India on 21.08.2025, placed before Parliament and
published by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, makes it abundantly
clear that the Provisions of the Municipalities (Extension to the
Scheduled Areas) Bill, 2001 (MESA) has remained in legislative
limbo for more than two decades. The said notification
acknowledges that although the Constitution empowers Parliament
to extend municipal governance to Scheduled Areas by law, no
such law has yet been enacted. It further records that while the
Bill was introduced in 2001, examined by a Parliamentary
Standing Committee in 2003, and again revived for consultation in
2020, the legislative process remains incomplete even as of
August 2025.
16.2.This Court observes that this prolonged legislative inaction
has resulted in a constitutional vacuum, wherein Scheduled Areas
are being subjected to municipal structures in the absence of a
democratically crafted legal framework specifically designed to
protect tribal interests within urban governance. In the absence of
MESA, municipal inclusion proceeds without the customary
safeguards, participatory rights, and community-centric
protections which Parliament considered indispensable for tribal
regions.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (38 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
16.3.This Court further observes that while the Fifth Schedule
permits the Governor to apply or modify State laws in Scheduled
Areas, this power was never intended to serve as a substitute for
comprehensive parliamentary legislation under Article 243-ZC(3).
The present arrangement, therefore, places the burden of
protecting constitutional values on ad hoc executive action rather
than on a coherent legislative architecture.
16.4.This Court is of the considered view that until Parliament
discharges its constitutional obligation by enacting MESA, the
administration of municipalised Scheduled Areas must proceed
with heightened constitutional sensitivity, ensuring that the
absence of statutory safeguards does not translate into the
erosion of tribal autonomy, land security, resource control and
participatory governance guaranteed by Article 244 and the Fifth
Schedule.
16.5.This Court therefore holds that, in the present constitutional
vacuum, where no Parliamentary enactment analogous to PESA
(such as the proposed MESA) has yet been enacted under Article
243-ZC(3) to provide a tailored municipal governance framework
for Scheduled Areas, the administrative arrangement must
proceed on a hybrid footing:
• Municipal functions relating to urban infrastructure, taxation,
civic services, regulation of construction, sanitation,
transport and public health shall be exercised under the
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009;
• Constitutional protections of Scheduled Areas, particularly
those concerning land, tribal welfare, resource protection,
social safeguards and regulatory control under the Fifth
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (39 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
Schedule, shall continue to operate and must inform all
executive and legislative action;
• Tribal institutions and consultative mechanisms that
previously functioned under the PESA framework shall
continue solely for the limited purpose of safeguarding the
interests of Scheduled Tribes, particularly in matters
affecting land, livelihoods, cultural integrity, and community
resources, and shall operate in a consultative and advisory
capacity, until Parliament enacts a comprehensive statutory
framework extending municipal governance to Scheduled
Areas under Article 243-ZC(3).
16.6. This Court is of the considered view that this arrangement
preserves constitutional balance: it enables effective urban
administration while preventing the erosion of the distinctive
protective regime that the Constitution has entrenched for
Scheduled Areas. Municipalisation, therefore, does not create a
governance void, nor does it permit the displacement of tribal
protections by ordinary municipal law. This Court observes that
the petitioners' apprehension regarding erosion of tribal rights and
community control cannot be dismissed lightly.
17. This Court reiterates that constitutional adjudication in
Scheduled Areas must maintain equilibrium between tribal
protection and evolving governance needs, ensuring:
Integration without assimilation and development without
dispossession.
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (40 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
18. In view of the foregoing analysis and determinations on the
issues framed hereinabove, this Court issues the following
directions and conclusions:
(A) On Validity of Municipal Inclusion
18.1. The inclusion of Village Balicha and similarly situated areas
within municipal limits under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 is not unconstitutional per se and does not stand vitiated
merely on the ground that such territories are Scheduled Areas, in
the absence of any exclusionary or modificatory notification issued
by the Governor under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule.
(B) On Continuing Constitutional Protection
18.2. The municipal inclusion of a Scheduled Area does not
denotify, dilute or extinguish its constitutional status under Article
244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule. All protections, obligations
and supervisory mechanisms flowing therefrom, including the role
of the Governor, the Tribes Advisory Council, and the
developmental mandates under Articles 46 and 275(1), continue
to operate with full force.
(C) On Governance Framework in Municipalised Scheduled
Areas
18.3. In the absence of a Parliamentary enactment extending Part
IX-A to Scheduled Areas under Article 243-ZC(3) (such as the
proposed MESA), the administration of municipalised Scheduled
Areas shall proceed under a constitutionally harmonised hybrid
framework, as follows:
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (41 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
• Municipal functions relating to urban infrastructure, civic
services, taxation, sanitation, public health, transport, land
use regulation and construction shall be governed by the
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009;
• Constitutional protections of Scheduled Areas relating to
tribal welfare, land security, forest and resource protection,
social safeguards and regulatory control under the Fifth
Schedule shall remain paramount and shall inform every
exercise of statutory and executive power;
• Tribal institutions and consultative mechanisms that
previously functioned under the PESA framework shall
continue solely for the limited purpose of safeguarding the
interests of Scheduled Tribes, particularly in matters
affecting land, livelihoods, cultural integrity, and community
resources, and shall operate in a consultative and advisory
capacity, until Parliament enacts a comprehensive statutory
framework extending municipal governance to Scheduled
Areas under Article 243-ZC(3).
(D) On Duty of the State & Governor
18.4. The State Government and the Governor shall ensure that
all future actions concerning governance, land use, development
projects, resource allocation and rehabilitation in municipalised
Scheduled Areas strictly conform to the protective discipline of the
Fifth Schedule and the constitutional commitment towards
Scheduled Tribes.
(E) On Legislative Vacuum & Constitutional Responsibility
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54651-DB] (42 of 42) [CW-3118/2025]
18.5. This Court records its serious constitutional concern over the
prolonged non-enactment of MESA and directs that the State shall
place before the Union Government and the Ministry concerned
the substance of this judgment for appropriate legislative
consideration, so that Scheduled Areas are not left indefinitely
within a governance vacuum.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes that
the impugned notifications are constitutionally valid, have been
issued in accordance with law, and do not suffer from any infirmity
warranting interference of this Court.
20. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are, disposed of,
accordingly.
20.1.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
-skant/-
(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 04:48:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
