Jaipur: Supreme Court has set aside a Rajasthan high court division bench judgment and restored a single judge order which quashed the creation of two revenue villages—Amargarh and Sagatsar—in Barmer district named after individuals. The apex court held that the state govt acted in “clear violation of its own binding policy guidelines”.Allowing the appeal filed by Bhika Ram, a bench of Justices P V Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, in its order on Dec 19, quashed Rajasthan HC’s judgment dated Aug 5, 2025, and restored the July 11, 2025, order of the single judge, which invalidated the state notification for breaching a 2009 govt circular prohibiting revenue villages from being named after individuals, caste, religion, or community. The copy of the SC order was uploaded Tuesday. On Dec 31, 2020, state govt issued notification through which several new revenue villages were created, including Amargarh and Sagatsar, which were carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani in village Sohda of Barmer district. Before the notification, the tehsildar (land records) had certified that all procedural formalities were completed and that the proposed villages were not associated with any individual, religion, caste, or community. Affidavits were also submitted by private individuals agreeing to donate land for the villages. However, in 2025, during a process initiated by the rural development and panchayati raj department for reorganisation of gram panchayats, objections were raised by residents of Meghwalon Ki Dhani. “They alleged that the names Amargarh and Sagatsar were derived from the names of individuals Amarram and Sagat Singh who donated land for the villages,” said the appeal.The matter reached the high court, which upheld the challenge and quashed the notification insofar as it related to Amargarh and Sagatsar, while granting liberty to the state to rename the villages in accordance with law.This order was later overturned by a division bench, which held that earlier judicial precedents could not be applied retrospectively to processes already concluded. The division bench reinstated the notification, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state’s 2009 circular was a binding policy decision, framed to ensure social and communal harmony. The court noted that it was undisputed that the village names were derived from private individuals, making the 2020 notification arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
