Ganga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:12836-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1792/2025

1.       Ganga Ram S/o Baga Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
         Gram Panchayat Mundho Ki Dhani, Tehsil Barmer Rural,
         District Barmer.
2.       Yaru Khan S/o Ali Khan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gram
         Panchayat Mundho Ki Dhani, Tehsil Barmer Rural, District
         Barmer.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Revenue (Group-
         1) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
2.       District Collector, Barmer.
3.       Sub Divisional Officer, Barmer.
4.       Tehsildar (Land Record), Barmer Rural, District Barmer.
5.       Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s)              :    Ms. Kanchan Jodha



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

18/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra

and it is covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench

of this Hon'ble Court in Banka Ram Chaudhary vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1394/2025)

and other connected matters on 25.02.2026. The judgment reads

as under:

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12836-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1792/2025]

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present batch of appeals arises out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Bench on 25.09.2025 whereby writ petitions led by SBCWP No.11767/2025 were dismissed in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Mala Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14930/2025 decided on 23.09.2025.

3. Since the question involved in the present matters is similar therefore, these present appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the controversy involved in the present case has now been set at rest by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhika Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 1482 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the controversy in the following terms:-

"14. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 16 of the Act, empowers the State Government to create, abolish or alter divisions etc. Section 16 of the Act is extracted below for the facility of reference:-

"Section 16: Power to create, abolish or alter divisions etc.-

The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette-

(a) create new or abolish existing division districts, sub-districts, sub-divisions, tehsils and sub-tehsils, villages, and

(b) alter the limits of any of them."

15. The Revenue Department of the State Government issued a comprehensive circular on 20.08.2009, laying down the criteria for declaring a new Revenue Village. Clause 4 of the aforesaid Circular, which is relevant for this Appeal, reads as under: -

"4. While proposing the new Revenue Village, a proposal for its name shall also be forwarded. While deciding the name, it shall be ensured that it is not based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste. As

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12836-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1792/2025]

far as possible, the name of the village shall be proposed with general consensus."

Thus, Clause 4 of the Circular mandates that the name of a Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste, and the same shall be proposed with the general consensus.

16. The aforesaid circular is in the nature of a policy decision. Clause 4 of the circular has been incorporated with an object to maintain communal harmony. It is well settled in law that a policy decision though executive in nature binds the Government, and the Government cannot act contrary thereto, unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action taken in derogation of such a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

17. Admittedly, the names of the Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the names of the individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. The notification dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in contravention of Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.08.2009. The State Government cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it. Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it pertains to Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar. The Division Bench failed to consider this material aspect and erred in limiting its consideration only to the applicability of earlier decisions in Moola Ram and Joga Ram (supra). In any case, the lis pending before a Court is required to be adjudicated on merits.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2025, passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1055/2025 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 12422/2025 is restored.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12836-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1792/2025]

5. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Bhika Ram (supra) the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be decided in the light of the judgment of Bhika Ram (supra). Learned counsel however, limited their prayer only to the extent of re-naming the villages in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the circular dated 20.8.2009 and subsequent circulars.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants that the controversy involved in the present matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, he submits that creation of the revenue villages and other process undertaken by the State Government may not be disturbed and the State Government will re-consider the renaming of the villages involved in the present appeals in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhika Ram and circular dated 20.08.2009 and the circulars issued thereafter.

7. In view of the submissions so made before this Court, following impugned notifications/proposals in the writ petitions creating the revenue villages are quashed and set aside to the limited extent of renaming the revenue villages contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhika Ram (supra) and circular dated 20.8.2009 :

S. No. Appeal No. Writ Petition Impugned Name of Villages No. Notification/propo sal dated

1. 1394/2025 12183/2025 22.3.2025 Shri Tikamgarh

2. 1410/2025 14987/2025 20.6.2025 Hiranmagari and Raila

3. 1537/2025 9305/2025 26.3.2025 Pratapdanpura

4. 1604/2025 8197/2025 4.4.2025 Sujanpur

5. 1612/2025 7733/2025 26.3.2025 Kalyan Singh Nagar and Shri Balaji Nagar

6. 1720/2025 14930/2025 25.7.2025 Harkanaada and Dero ki Dhani

7. 1721/2025 10461/2025 31.12.2024 Kojusingh Nagar Gada

8. 1778/2025 4544/2025 3.1.2025 Khothawas and Aalam Nagar Khurd

9. 1833/2025 12367/2025 22.03.2025 Bhadresha Nagar

10. 47/2026 7287/2025 27.03.2025 Sen Samel Son

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12836-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1792/2025]

Nagar

11. 49/2026 14965/2025 5.6.2025 Bhatelai Purohitan Kallan and Bhatelai Purohitan Shasan

8. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of in a manner that the above impugned notifications/proposals in the writ petitions in which the names of above revenue villages have been mentioned by the State Government contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhika Ram (supra) and contrary to the spirit of circular dated 20.08.2009, the State Government shall reconsider the renaming of above revenue villages in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhika Ram (supra) and the circular dated 20.08.2009 and subsequent circulars. It is made clear that the action taken by the State Government for creation of new revenue villages and their development shall not be disturbed."

2. In light of the aforequoted order, the present special appeal

is disposed of on the same terms. All pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 42-Love/-

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:35:37 PM)