Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-015093-015093 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 50629/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The State Government’s policy circular of 20.08.2009, especially Clause 4 prohibiting naming a Revenue Village after any person, religion, caste or sub-caste, is an executive policy binding on the Government unless lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any notification contravening this policy is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | A policy decision by the Executive binds the Government and cannot be ignored without lawful amendment; violation of an executive policy renders the action arbitrary, attracting Article 14 scrutiny; Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 empowers creation of villages but must comply with policy. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A Gram Panchayat proposal led to certificates (24.12.2020) and affidavits donating land for four new Revenue Villages including “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar.” A notification dated 31.12.2020 created these villages. After objections and a Single Judge quash (11.07.2025), a Division Bench reversed that decision (05.08.2025). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Overrules | Division Bench order dated 05.08.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1055/2025 |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clause 4 of the 20.08.2009 Revenue Department circular is mandatory and binds the State unless formally amended or withdrawn.
- Naming Revenue Villages after individuals, religions, castes or sub-castes violates policy and is arbitrary under Article 14.
- Notifications contravening executive policy can be quashed even if statutory procedure under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is otherwise followed.
- High Court Division Bench’s limitation on applying precedents where “process was not pending” is not a bar to merits adjudication on policy compliance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 empowers the State to create or alter villages but requires compliance with internal policy.
- Revenue Department Circular dated 20.08.2009 (Clause 4) mandates that new village names not be based on persons, religions, castes, or sub-castes.
- Executive policy decisions, though not legislation, bind the Government and cannot be ignored without valid amendment—any contrary action is arbitrary under Article 14.
- Admitted derivation of “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” from individual names contravened the circular, rendering the notification of 31.12.2020 invalid.
- Earlier High Court Single Bench quash was correct; Division Bench reversal failed to consider policy binding nature—hence SC restores Single Judge order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants):
- The names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” are clearly derived from individuals (Amarram and Sagat Singh) in violation of Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular.
- The impugned notification must be quashed and set aside.
State of Rajasthan:
- Statutory procedure under Section 16 was duly followed.
- The Circular dated 20.08.2009 is directory, not mandatory; settled notifications should not be reopened.
Respondent Nos. 6–9:
- Appellants lack locus standi; no legal injury has been caused.
- The appeal against the notification is liable to be dismissed.
Factual Background
In December 2020, certificates and affidavits were obtained to carve out four new Revenue Villages, including “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar,” from Meghwalon Ki Dhani. A State Government notification (31.12.2020) formally created these villages under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In April 2025, objections were raised that the village names derived from individual names. The High Court Single Judge quashed the notification for non-compliance with a Revenue Department Circular; a Division Bench reversed that order; the Supreme Court granted leave and restored the Single Judge’s decision in December 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 16, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956: empowers State Government to create, abolish or alter villages by notification.
- Revenue Department Circular dated 20.08.2009, Clause 4: mandates that proposed village names not be based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste and require general consensus.
- Article 14 of the Constitution: arbitrary executive action—such as contravention of a binding policy—violates the equality guarantee.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions; the Judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None; the judgment applies established principles on executive policy binding nature and Article 14 arbitrariness without introducing new procedural norms.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms binding nature of executive policy and Article 14 scrutiny.