Legal provisions involved: Section 16, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956; Clause 4 of Rajasthan Government Circular dated August 20, 2009; Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
Facts
In 2020, the Rajasthan government created new revenue villages, including “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar,” named after people who donated land. Villagers objected, saying the names violated a 2009 government circular that forbade naming villages after individuals, caste, religion, or community. A Single Judge quashed the notification for these villages, but a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court later allowed it. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court.
Key legal provisions
Section 16 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956
Clause 4 of Rajasthan Government Circular dated August 20, 2009
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues raised
Whether the revenue villages can be named after individuals, and can the State ignore its own binding policy?
Arguments of the case
The appellants said naming villages after individuals went against the government’s policy and was unfair. The respondents argued that previous court rulings allowed the notification to remain.
Court’s reasoning
It was held by the court that –
“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.”
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that naming villages after individuals violated the government’s policy. The Division Bench’s order was set aside, the Single Judge’s order quashing the notification was restored, and the government must rename the villages according to the law. No costs were imposed.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
