'Govt Cannot Act Contrary To Its Own Policy' : Supreme Court Quashes Naming Of Rajasthan Villages After Individuals

The Supreme Court has held that the State Government of Rajasthan acted in violation of its own binding policy by naming newly created revenue villages after private individuals, and restored a Single Judge order quashing such notifications.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed an appeal filed by residents of village Sohda in Barmer district, setting aside a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had upheld the creation of the revenue villages “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar”.

Background

The dispute arose from a notification issued by the Rajasthan Government on December 31, 2020 under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, by which several new revenue villages were created. Among them were Amargarh and Sagatsar, carved out of Meghwalo Ki Dhani in village Sohda, Barmer district.

Prior to the notification, the Tehsildar (Land Records) had certified that all requirements for the formation of the new revenue villages were met and that there was no dispute regarding their creation. Affidavits were also executed by individuals agreeing to donate land for the proposed villages.

In 2025, during a subsequent exercise for reorganisation of Gram Panchayats, objections were raised by villagers alleging that the names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were derived from the names of individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh.

High Court proceedings

The appellants approached the High Court challenging the 2020 notification insofar as it related to the two revenue villages. A Single Judge, by an order dated July 11, 2025, held that the naming of the villages violated a State Government circular dated August 20, 2009, which prohibits naming revenue villages after any person, religion, caste or sub-caste. Relying on earlier decisions, the Single Judge quashed the notification with respect to Amargarh and Sagatsar, while granting liberty to rename them in accordance with law.

This order was overturned by a Division Bench on August 5, 2025, which held that the benefit of earlier judgments could not be extended as the process of creation of the villages had already concluded.

Supreme Court's reasoning

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had erred in overlooking the binding nature of the 2009 circular. The Court noted that Clause 4 of the circular clearly mandates that the name of a revenue village must not be based on any individual and that the policy was framed to maintain communal harmony.

The Bench reiterated that policy decisions of the government, though executive in nature, are binding on the State and cannot be violated unless lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action contrary to such policy, the Court held, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

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.

On facts, the Court found it undisputed that the names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were derived from the names of individuals who had also donated land for the villages. The 2020 notification, therefore, was held to be in clear contravention of the 2009 circular and incapable of being sustained in law.

The Court rejected the approach of the Division Bench, observing that a lis pending before a court must be adjudicated on its merits and that the State could not justify an illegal action on the ground that the issue had attained finality.

The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench judgment dated August 5, 2025, and restored the Single Judge's order dated July 11, 2025, which had set aside the notification creating the revenue villages Amargarh and Sagatsar.

Case : Bhika Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1247

Click here to read the judgment