Bhika Ram and Another v. State of Rajasthan
The case concerns Bhika Ram and Another v. State of Rajasthan, raising an important question of law as to whether Revenue Villages can be constituted with names derived from individuals, when such naming is expressly prohibited under State Government policy, and whether disregard of such executive policy amounts to arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The facts of the case trace back to a notification dated 31 December 2020 issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, whereby several new Revenue Villages were constituted in the district of Barmer, including Amargarh and Sagatsar. The local inhabitants challenged the notification on the ground that the names of these villages were derived from the names of land donors, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. It was contended that such naming was contrary to a Government Circular issued in 2009, which expressly prohibits naming of villages after any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste.
A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court accepted the challenge and struck down the notification insofar as it related to the two villages. The Single Judge held that the naming violated the 2009 Circular and permitted the authorities to rename the villages in accordance with law and established precedents. However, this decision was subsequently set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court on technical grounds, without addressing the substantive legal issue involved. Aggrieved by the Division Bench’s order, the villagers preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed the order of the Division Bench. The Court held that although the 2009 Circular was an executive instruction, it could not be disregarded arbitrarily. The Court observed that naming Revenue Villages after individuals was contrary to the clear intent of the policy and amounted to arbitrariness, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It further held that the Division Bench had failed to address this fundamental issue of law while overturning the Single Judge’s decision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the impugned notification was unsustainable insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar and directed that the matter be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
The significance of Bhika Ram and Another v. State of Rajasthan lies in reaffirming that executive policies, though not statutory in nature, cannot be ignored in an arbitrary manner by the State. The judgment reinforces constitutional discipline in administrative action and underscores that deviations from declared policy must satisfy the test of reasonableness and equality under Article 14. It serves as an important precedent on the binding force of executive instructions in matters of governance and territorial administration.