Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhoja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan … on 9 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1514/2025
Bhoja Ram S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bheelo
Ki Dhani, Dantal, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar Falsund, District Jaisalmer.
5. Himmata Ram S/o Dadu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Dantal, Tehsil Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ikban Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Ms. Kanchan Jodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
09/03/2026
I.A. No.01/2025:-
1. The matter comes upon an application (Inward No.01/2025)
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay of 38 days in filing the appeal.
2. The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Office has
pointed out a defect that the appeal is barred by 38 days. The
appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act asserting therein that the appellant was not impleaded as a
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]party to the present writ petition, although he is a resident of the
same village, and immediately upon coming to know about
passing of the order in question, the present appeal has been
filed. It is stated that the delay is nominal and there is sufficient
justification for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.
3. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Ms. Kanchan Jodha, learned counsel for the
respondents, does not oppose the application for condonation of
delay and submits that since the delay is nominal, thus the same
may be condoned.
4. Considering the submissions made, the application (Inward
No.01/2025) is allowed. The delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
I.A. No.02/2025:-
1. The appellant has filed the present application for granting
leave to appeal, while asserting that he is a resident of the village
and his rights have been infringed by way of the impugned order,
he was not impleaded as a party and, since he has a substantial
interest in the naming of the village, which according to him is
based upon the name of the local deity, the leave may be granted.
2. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, as also
the contents of the application, the same is allowed. Leave is
granted and the case in hand is treated as a regular Special
Appeal (Writ).
IN D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1514/2025:-
1. Heard the case on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
respondent-State Government had issued a Circular dated
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]20.08.2009 specifying the criteria for creation of new revenue
villages. As per Clause 4 of the circular in question, the name of
the village was not to be kept in the name of a particular person,
religion, caste or sub-caste and, as far as possible, the name was
to be decided as per the consensus amongst the villagers. He
submits that Clause 4 of the aforesaid circular was amended by a
fresh Circular dated 17.02.2025, which, although provided for an
embargo on naming the village in the name of a person, religion,
caste or sub-caste, however, granted liberty to name the village in
the name of a Martyr, a popular person, etc. He also submits that
based upon the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the
name of the new revenue village, which was carved out from the
existing revenue village “Dantal”, was proposed to be named as
“Shree Chhotsa Nagar”. He further submits that the private
respondent had filed a writ petition challenging the same, while
asserting that the word “Chhotsa” has been used with reference to
Chhotu Singh @ Chhotsa, who was the brother of the then
Sarpanch and, therefore, the village was being named in the name
of a person, which was not permissible as per the circular in
question.
3. The earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.6424/2025 “Himmata Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” came
to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide
order dated 26.03.2025, with directions to the respondents to
consider the representation filed by the petitioner therein in light
of the judgment passed by this Court in Moola Ram v. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3470/2025), decided on
18.02.2025. It was further clarified that while deciding the
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]representation, the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Moola Ram (supra) as well as the new circular issued by the State
Government, on the subject, shall be considered. The
representation of the petitioner therein was rejected by the
District Collector, vide order dated 16.05.2025, while observing
that there was no ambiguity in carving out of the new village. The
writ petitioner thereafter approached the Court again by way of
filing the writ petition in question being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12604/2025 “Himmata Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.“. The
Writ Court thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2025, allowed the
writ petition while treating the name “Shree Chhotsa Nagar” to be
the name of a person, which was impermissible as per the circular
issued by the State Government.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single
Judge has failed to consider the fact that the amended circular
permitted the State Government to name a village after a Special
Person or a Martyr, etc., however, the name of the village is based
on the name of a deity. He further submits that the learned Single
Judge has also failed to consider the circumstances of the case
while allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Ms. Kanchan Jodha, learned counsel for the
respondents, oppose the submissions of the appellant and submit
that by way of the impugned order, the Writ Court has not
disturbed the creation of the village and has only directed a
change of the name, while granting liberty to the State
Government to proceed afresh by simply changing the name of
the village. He further submits that the controversy in hand stands
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
reported in 2025 INSC 1482, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has decided the controversy in the following terms:-
“14. We have considered the rival submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. Section 16 of the Act,
empowers the State Government to create, abolish or alter
divisions etc. Section 16 of the Act is extracted below for the
facility of reference:–
“Section 16: Power to create, abolish or alter
divisions etc.-
The State Government may by notification in
the official Gazette-
(a) create new or abolish existing division districts,
sub-districts, sub-divisions, tehsils and sub-tehsils,
villages, and
(b) alter the limits of any of them.”
15. The Revenue Department of the State Government issued a
comprehensive circular on 20.08.2009, laying down the criteria
for declaring a new Revenue Village. Clause 4 of the aforesaid
Circular, which is relevant for this Appeal, reads as under:–
“4. While proposing the new Revenue Village, a
proposal for its name shall also be forwarded. While
deciding the name, it shall be ensured that it is not
based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste.
As far as possible, the name of the village shall be
proposed with general consensus.”
Thus, Clause 4 of the Circular mandates that the name of
a Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion,
caste or sub-caste, and the same shall be proposed with the
general consensus.
16. The aforesaid circular is in the nature of a policy decision.
Clause 4 of the circular has been incorporated with an object to
maintain communal harmony. 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
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]
valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.”
17. 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.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment
dated 05.08.2025, passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.
1055/2025 is quashed and set aside. The order dated
11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition no. 12422/2025 is restored.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.”
5.1 He further submits that the judgments passed by the learned
Single Judge in the cases of Mala Ram & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14930/2025, decided
on 23.09.2025, and Joga Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7275/2025, decided on 08.05.2025, are
governing the field, and the same have further been upheld by
way of dismissal of the Special Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhika Ram (supra), while holding that the
guidelines framed by the State Government, more particularly the
Circular dated 20.08.2009, as amended from time to time, cannot
be contravened. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present
Special Appeal (Writ).
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the representation dated 12.03.2025
(Annexure-5) will reveal that by way of Ground No.8 a specific
objection was raised with regard to the naming of the village in
favour of a person from a particular community, the same being in
violation of the circular issued by the State Government.
Furthermore, a perusal of the Jamabandi (Annexure-6 to the writ
petition) clearly reveals that Chhotu Singh is the name of brother
of the Sarpanch. Further, considering that the learned Single
Judge, in the first round of litigation, vide judgment dated
23.06.2025, had specifically directed consideration of the
representation in light of the circular issued by the State
Government as well as the judgment passed in the case of Moola
Ram (supra), the District Collector, in a very perfunctory manner,
has not at all considered the objection raised by the writ petitioner
with regard to naming of the village and has simply decided the
issue with regard to carving out of a separate village.
8. The assertion made by learned counsel for the appellant with
regard to “Chhotsa” being the name of a deity is not supported by
any document or evidence whatsoever. Even the photographs
placed on record by way of additional documents reveal that the
same relate to a local deity, namely Bhomiya Ji, and the name of
the village has been shown as “Chhotsa Dantal.” Thus, it is
nowhere clear that “Chhotsa” is the name of any deity and it
essentially appears to be the name of the brother of the Sarpanch.
9. The issue in hand is no longer res integra, in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-1514/2025]
Bhika Ram (supra), wherein it has clearly been observed that the
Circular dated 20.08.2009 and the subsequent amendments
thereto have to be followed. Since there was a specific embargo in
the Circular dated 20.08.2009, as amended from time to time,
with regard to naming a village in the name of a person. Thus, no
illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent,
while quashing the notification in question to the extent of name
of the village and granting liberty to the State Government to
change the name of the village without undertaking the entire
proceedings for creation of a new revenue village.
10. The present Special Appeal (Writ) being bereft of merit and
is therefore dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (FARJAND ALI),J
46-devrajP/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:09:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)