Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Dec 20: The Supreme Court on Friday quashed a 2020 Rajasthan government notification creating two new revenue villages after finding that they were named after individuals, in clear violation of the state’s own policy barring such naming.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that the state government could not act contrary to a binding executive policy framed by it, observing that any such action would be arbitrary and unconstitutional. Quashing the notification dated December 31, 2020, insofar as it related to the revenue villages Amargarh and Sagatsar, the court said no legal sanctity could be attached to an action taken in breach of the policy.

The case arose from the creation of four new revenue villages in Barmer district following a proposal by the gram panchayat of Sohda village. Acting under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the state had notified four villages — Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani, Sagatsar, Amargarh and Hemnagar — carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani in Sohda.

Although revenue officials had certified that the proposed villages were not associated with any individual, religion, caste or community, objections were later raised during a 2025 exercise for reorganisation of gram panchayats. Villagers contended that the names Amargarh and Sagatsar were derived from individuals who had donated land for the villages.

Residents of Sohda approached the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that naming revenue villages after individuals violated a 2009 government circular. A single judge accepted the plea and quashed the notification with respect to the two villages, granting liberty to the state to rename them as per law. However, a division bench later set aside this order, holding that earlier judgments could not be applied retrospectively.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court termed the division bench’s approach flawed. Referring to the August 2009 circular of the revenue department, the court noted that it clearly mandates that names of revenue villages should not be based on any person, religion, caste or sub-caste. The circular, the bench said, was a binding policy decision and could not be ignored unless lawfully amended or withdrawn.

Rejecting the state’s contention that the circular was merely directory, the court observed that its objective was to maintain communal harmony and could not be treated lightly. It also noted that it was undisputed that Amargarh and Sagatsar were named after Amarram and Sagat Singh, who had donated land, which amounted to a clear breach of the policy.

The Supreme Court set aside the high court division bench judgment and restored the single judge’s order quashing the notification insofar as it related to the two villages.