Rajasthan High Court: In a bunch of writ petitions filed challenging notifications issued by the State Government for the creation of new revenue village and naming it after local deity “Gogaji”, a single-judge bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashed the notifications and emphasised on the need to follow established guidelines for naming new villages, thereby not disturbing the communal harmony in the society.
In the instant matter, the dispute centered around the notification dated 20-01-2025, which announced the creation of a new revenue village named “Gogaji Ki Jaal” in District Barmer. The proposal for the village was initiated in a meeting held on 30-09-2024. The proposal included a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) issued by the Gram Panchayat and was approved by the Tehsildar and SDO, Gudamalani.
Upon learning of the village creation, local villagers filed representations with the State Government, asserting that the notification violated Clause 4 of the State Government’s Circular dated 20-08-2009 (2009 Circular), which restricted the naming of villages after any person, caste, sub-caste, or religion. It was contended that the village was named after a local deity “Gogaji,” who is worshiped by a specific community, thereby violating the restriction on naming villages after persons, castes, or religions. Similar challenges were raised in other petitions concerning either issued notifications or pending proposals for new villages violating Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular.
However, the State contended that the State Government amended Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular via a new Circular dated 17-02-2025 (2025 Circular) and the amendment was based on reconsideration of public representations and provided a more liberal framework. The State expressed willingness to reassess the process in light of the amended guidelines and sought for additional time to implement the revised procedure for naming villages.
The Court noted that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 empowers the State Government to create, abolish, or alter divisions, districts, sub-divisions, tehsils, and villages through notifications. It was noted that Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular (prior to amendment) prohibited naming villages after any person, caste, sub-caste, or religion to uphold social harmony. It was further noted that the amended Clause 4 of 2025 Circular introduced a requirement for Gram Sabha resolutions before sending proposals to the State Government, however, maintained restrictions on naming villages after persons, castes, or religions but with procedural changes.
The Court found that the naming of the village as “Gogaji Ki Jaal” violated the original Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular. The Court stated that other similar notifications also failed to conform to the previous naming restrictions.
The Court acknowledged the State’s modification of Clause 4 via the 2025 Circular. However, the Court stated that since the original notification dated 20-01-2025 was issued before this amendment, it was still governed by the unamended guidelines.
The Court struck down the notification dated 20-01-2025, along with other similar notifications violating Clause 4 of the 2009 Circular. The Court directed the State Government to restart the village creation process in compliance with both the 2009 and 2025 Circulars, thereby not disturbing the communal harmony in the society.
The Court asserted that the present order will only be applicable on the petitioners who approached the Court. The Court further stated that the cases where notifications has not been issued but proposals were pending are also covered under the ruling. The Court instructed the State Government to adhere to amended guidelines in future exercises.
[Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3470/2025, Decided on 18-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. D.L.R.Vyas, Mr. DS Udawat, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, Mr. Ramavtar Singh, Mr. AR Godara, Mr. Ram Dayal, Mr. Shailendra Gwala, Mr. Ramesh Siyag, Mr. Sumer Singh Rathore, Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, Mr. Akshya Kumar Surana, Mr. Trilok Singh, Mr. RJ Punia, Mr. Ratish Bhagnagar, Ms. Laxmi Rathore, Mr. Rajesh Bhargava, Mr. Manohar Singh, Mr. Vipin Makkad, Mr. Kunal Upadhyay and Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG and Mr. Manish Patel, Counsel for the Respondents
