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 on subordinate courts; authoritative on executive policy binding nature |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Judge order quashing notification; overrules Division Bench order of Rajasthan High Court (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025) |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Constitutional law (Article 14) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a State Government policy circular (Clause 4, 20.08.2009) barring names based on individuals binds the executive in creating revenue villages under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 752; Home Secy., U.T. of Chandigarh & Anr. v. Darshjit Singh Grewal & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 25; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 117 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Policy circulars issued by the executive constitute binding directives; breach amounts to arbitrary action under Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Tehsildar verified and State notified creation of “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” villages on 31.12.2020; names derived from donors Amarram and Sagat Singh; villagers objected; Single Judge quashed notification; Division Bench reversed; Supreme Court restored Single Judge. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts; State Government authorities responsible for revenue-village notifications |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; policy-making departments in States considering executive circulars |
| Overrules | Division Bench judgment in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025 (Rajasthan High Court) |
| Distinguishes | Single‐Bench decisions in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan (18.02.2025) and Joga Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (08.05.2025) |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents on binding nature of executive policy: Mahabir Auto Stores; Home Secy., Chandigarh; State of Punjab v. Bagga |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The State cannot ignore its own policy circular (Clause 4, 20.08.2009) when naming revenue villages; such policy decisions bind the executive.
- Naming a revenue village after an individual violates the circular and is arbitrary under Article 14.
- A Division Bench’s decision reversing a Single Judge cannot ignore the binding nature of executive policy.
- Objections based on policy non-compliance outweigh retrospective extensions of High Court SB decisions.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to challenge any executive action that contravenes an unamended policy directive.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act empowers the State Government to create, abolish or alter villages by notification.
- The Revenue Department’s circular dated 20.08.2009 (Clause 4) mandates that new revenue-village names not be based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste, and requires general consensus.
- Executive policy decisions of this character are binding on the Government; non-compliance is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
- The names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” derived from donors Amarram and Sagat Singh violated Clause 4 and had no legal sanctity.
- The Division Bench erred by focusing only on applicability of Moola Ram and Joga Ram SB decisions and ignoring the policy’s binding force.
- The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench order, restored the Single Judge order, and directed compliance with the policy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- The village names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” are derived from individual donors, violating the 20.08.2009 circular.
- The notification dated 31.12.2020 is arbitrary and must be quashed.
State Government
- Statutory procedure under Section 16 was duly followed.
- The circular is directory, not mandatory; past decisions should not be reopened retrospectively.
Respondent Nos. 6–9
- Appellants lack locus standi; notification causes no legal injury to them.
- Appeal against the notification should be dismissed.
Factual Background
Residents of village Sohda (Barmer, Rajasthan) sought creation of four new revenue villages; Tehsildar’s certificates (24.12.2020) and State notification (31.12.2020) established “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar.” Affidavits from land donors Amarram and Badli Kunwar confirmed land donation. Objections filed on 21.04.2025 asserted names derived from individuals. The Single Judge quashed the notification (11.07.2025); Division Bench allowed an appeal (05.08.2025); Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order on 19.12.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 16, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956: empowers State Government to create or abolish villages by notification.
- Clause 4, Revenue Department Circular (20.08.2009): prohibits naming new villages after any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste; requires general consensus.
- Constitutional provision: Article 14 – state action must not be arbitrary; binding policy decisions prevent arbitrariness.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – policy circulars as binding executive decisions
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – overturns the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1055/2025