The Supreme Court has pulled up the Rajasthan government for breaking its own rulebook, striking down the naming of two newly created revenue villages after private individuals and restoring an earlier order that had set those names aside.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by residents of Sohda village in Barmer district, who had challenged the State’s decision to christen two carved-out revenue units as “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar”. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe overturned a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench decision that had earlier allowed the names to stand.
How the dispute began
The controversy traces back to a State notification issued under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, through which several new revenue villages were created, including Amargarh and Sagatsar. These were formed from Meghwalo Ki Dhani, part of Sohda village.
At the time, official records indicated that procedural requirements had been met, with no objections raised. Certain individuals had also agreed to donate land for the formation of the new villages.
Years later, during an exercise to reorganise local self-government units, villagers objected to the names. Their complaint was simple but significant: the village names were drawn from the names of individuals—Amarram and Sagat Singh—something expressly barred by a long-standing State policy.
A split within the High Court
A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court accepted this argument, pointing to a 2009 government circular that prohibits naming revenue villages after any individual, religion, caste or sub-caste. The judge set aside the notification for the two villages, while allowing the State to rename them lawfully.
That decision was later reversed by a Division Bench, which reasoned that the village-creation process had already concluded and could not be reopened.
What the Supreme Court said
The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the Division Bench had overlooked a core principle: the government is bound by its own policies.
Referring to the 2009 circular, the Court noted that the prohibition on person-based names was not decorative guidance but a binding directive aimed at preserving social harmony. Unless such a policy is formally amended or withdrawn, the State has no liberty to sidestep it.
Any action taken in violation of an existing policy, the Court said, is arbitrary and falls foul of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.
On facts, the Bench found no dispute that both “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were derived from the names of individuals who had donated land. That alone was enough to render the naming exercise unlawful.
The Court also rejected the idea that an illegality could be defended simply because time had passed or administrative steps had been completed. A pending dispute, it said, must be decided on its merits—not buried under claims of finality.
The outcome
Setting aside the Division Bench ruling, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order quashing the village names, clearing the way for the State to rename them in line with its own policy.
