Home  > Recent Judgements  > Govt Cannot Act Contrary to Its Own Policy’ Supreme Court Quashes Naming of Rajasthan Villages After Individuals

Dec  23- 2025

Govt Cannot Act Contrary to Its Own Policy’ Supreme Court Quashes Naming of Rajasthan Villages After Individuals

BHIKA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Introduction

In a significant reaffirmation of administrative law principles, the Supreme Court of India has held that a State Government is bound by its own executive policies and cannot act in derogation of them unless such policies are lawfully amended or withdrawn. The Court quashed the naming of two newly created revenue villages in Rajasthan ‘Amargarh and Sagatsar’ after private individuals, holding the action to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by residents of village Sohda, Barmer district, restoring the order of the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and setting aside the contrary view taken by the Division Bench.

Factual Background

The controversy originated from a notification dated 31 December 2020, issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, creating several new revenue villages. Among these were Amargarh and Sagatsar, carved out of Meghwalo Ki Dhani in village Sohda, Barmer district.

Prior to issuance of the notification, the Tehsildar (Land Records) certified that all statutory requirements for the formation of the new revenue villages were fulfilled and that there were no objections at that stage. Affidavits were also furnished by certain individuals consenting to donate land for the creation of the villages.

The dispute surfaced later, in 2025, during a subsequent reorganisation of Gram Panchayats, when villagers objected to the names of the two villages. It was alleged that the names Amargarh and Sagatsar were derived from the names of private individuals—Amarram and Sagat Singh—who had donated land, thereby violating an existing State policy.

Proceedings Before the High Court

The appellants approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the 2020 notification insofar as it named the two revenue villages.

A Single Judge, by order dated 11 July 2025, held that the naming of the villages was in clear violation of a State Government circular dated 20 August 2009, which expressly prohibits naming revenue villages after any individual, religion, caste, or sub-caste. Relying on earlier precedents and the binding nature of the policy, the Single Judge quashed the notification with respect to Amargarh and Sagatsar, while granting liberty to the State to rename the villages in accordance with law.

However, this view was overturned by a Division Bench on 5 August 2025, which held that since the process of creation of the villages had already been completed, earlier judgments could not be extended to the present case.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The principal questions before the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the State Government could name revenue villages after private individuals despite a binding policy prohibiting such naming; and
  • Whether an action taken in violation of such a policy could be sustained merely because the administrative process had been completed.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in ignoring the binding nature of the 2009 circular. The Court noted that Clause 4 of the circular unequivocally mandates that the name of a revenue village must not be based on the name of any individual, a policy framed to preserve social harmony and prevent personalised or sectarian nomenclature.

The Bench emphatically reiterated a settled principle of administrative law:

“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 donated land for the villages. This, in the Court’s view, placed the 2020 notification in direct contravention of the 2009 circular, rendering it legally unsustainable.

The Court also rejected the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench that the illegality stood cured because the process of village creation had attained finality. It observed that a lis pending before a court must be decided on its merits and that the State cannot defend an illegal action on the plea of administrative completion or fait accompli.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court:

  • Quashed the Division Bench judgment dated 5 August 2025; and
  • Restored the Single Judge’s order dated 11 July 2025, which had set aside the notification creating the revenue villages Amargarh and Sagatsar, while permitting their renaming in accordance with law.

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces several foundational principles of public law:

  • Binding nature of executive policy: Government authorities are bound by their own policies and circulars, even if executive in character.
  • Equality and non-arbitrariness: Any departure from a declared policy, without lawful amendment or justification, attracts the vice of arbitrariness under Article 14.
  • No defence of administrative finality: Illegality cannot be legitimised merely because an administrative action has been completed or implemented.

By striking down personalised naming of revenue villages, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of neutrality, consistency, and rule of law in governmental decision-making, particularly in matters that have social and communal implications.