1. Challenge to creation of new Revenue Village under Section 16, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 718
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Sanjeet Purohit, JJ.
Poonma Ram S/o Amra Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1563 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Important Points
Administrative decisions to create revenue villages are subject to limited judicial review. While executive guidelines ensure objectivity, courts will not interfere in factual or technical disputes regarding their application unless clear, unimpeachable evidence of arbitrariness or breach is presented.
Subject
Administrative Law - Land Revenue
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Creation of new Revenue Villages - Power to create, alter or reorganise revenue villages is essentially administrative in nature - Administrative decisions, even when founded on policy considerations, are amenable to judicial review where they are alleged to be arbitrary, mala fide, mechanically taken, or in breach of binding norms (Paras 7 and 15) - Government circulars prescribing parameters for creation of revenue villages constitute binding executive instructions issued in exercise of the State’s executive power to ensure uniformity, transparency and objectivity - Non-compliance with such executive norms, particularly where it results in arbitrariness or unequal treatment, may vitiate the administrative action (Para 9).
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review in administrative matters - Jurisdiction is calibrated to intervene only where a clear and demonstrable breach of binding norms or procedural fairness is established (Para 10) - Disputes regarding measurement of distance or territorial alignment are essentially factual and technical in nature - In the absence of unimpeachable material demonstrating a clear violation on the face of the record, the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent revenue authorities (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged a notification creating a new revenue village, alleging that the creation violated mandatory distance norms prescribed in government circulars, specifically that the distance between the headquarters of the existing and new village was virtually zero. A Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. In the intra-court appeal, the State submitted that the distance was measured from the center points of the abadi areas and the requirements were satisfied.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute regarding the measurement of distance is a factual and technical issue based on revenue records and maps. As the appellants failed to provide unimpeachable material to prove a clear violation of the prescribed norms, there was no reason to interfere with the administrative decision taken by the revenue authorities.
Issues: Whether the creation of a new revenue village in alleged violation of executive distance norms warrants judicial interference and whether the guidelines laid down in government circulars are mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative decisions involving the reorganization of revenue units are subject to limited judicial review. While executive guidelines are binding to prevent arbitrariness, factual disputes regarding their application cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction without cogent evidence, as the court cannot substitute its view for that of technical revenue authorities.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review in administrative matters - Jurisdiction is calibrated to intervene only where a clear and demonstrable breach of binding norms or procedural fairness is established (Para 10) - Disputes regarding measurement of distance or territorial alignment are essentially factual and technical in nature - In the absence of unimpeachable material demonstrating a clear violation on the face of the record, the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent revenue authorities (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged a notification creating a new revenue village, alleging that the creation violated mandatory distance norms prescribed in government circulars, specifically that the distance between the headquarters of the existing and new village was virtually zero. A Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. In the intra-court appeal, the State submitted that the distance was measured from the center points of the abadi areas and the requirements were satisfied.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute regarding the measurement of distance is a factual and technical issue based on revenue records and maps. As the appellants failed to provide unimpeachable material to prove a clear violation of the prescribed norms, there was no reason to interfere with the administrative decision taken by the revenue authorities.
Issues: Whether the creation of a new revenue village in alleged violation of executive distance norms warrants judicial interference and whether the guidelines laid down in government circulars are mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative decisions involving the reorganization of revenue units are subject to limited judicial review. While executive guidelines are binding to prevent arbitrariness, factual disputes regarding their application cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction without cogent evidence, as the court cannot substitute its view for that of technical revenue authorities.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For the Respondent:Ms. Kanchan Jodha, for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manish Patel, with Ms. Nandipna Gehlot
For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For the Respondent:Ms. Kanchan Jodha, for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manish Patel, with Ms. Nandipna Gehlot
Table of Contents
2. Appellants alleged violation of mandatory distance norms in circulars; State argued circulars are directory and facts disputed. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Circulars are binding executive instructions but judicial review limited where factual disputes exist on breach of norms. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Mere allegation of violating executive guidelines without unimpeachable material does not warrant invalidation of administrative decision. (Para 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed; appellants at liberty to submit representation before competent authority. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Are government circulars prescribing parameters for creating revenue villages mandatory or directory?
They are binding executive instructions ensuring uniformity and transparency, but not statutory; non-compliance may vitiate action if it causes arbitrariness. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What is the standard of judicial review for an administrative decision to create a new revenue village?
Judicial review is limited and calibrated to intervene only where a clear and demonstrable breach of binding norms or procedural fairness is established. (Para 7 , 10 )
8. Can a court interfere with an administrative decision based solely on an allegation of violation of executive guidelines?
No; mere allegation without substantiation by cogent and unimpeachable material cannot compel the court to invalidate an administrative decision. (Para 16 )
9. Can an additional affidavit from the state explaining the administrative basis for a decision be considered by the court?
Yes; such an affidavit clarifying the basis on which a proposal was processed is permissible explanation, not an impermissible post facto justification. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. The instant D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellants claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Special Appeal (writ) may kindly be allowed and quashed and set aside i. The judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii. Further the impugned notification dated 06.04.2025, whereby the new Revenue Village ‘Bhagwanji Ki Dhani’ has been created may kindly be set aside.
iii. the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with the circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, after deciding the objections of the villagers; and
iv. Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”
2. At the outset this Court clarifies that the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2025 has been rendered by the learned Single Judge while deciding a batch of writ petitions raising a common challenge to the creation of new Revenue Villages. However, the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred only by the appellants herein, who were petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025, and their grievance is confined strictly to the adjudication of their said writ petition. Accordingly, the consideration and decision in the present appeal shall be restricted to the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment insofar as it pertains to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025 alone, and it is clarified that the findings and conclusions recorded herein shall not affect or govern the cases of other writ petitioners, which were disposed of by the common judgment and are not the subject matter of the present appeal.
3. The brief facts due to which the instant controversy has emanated are that the appellants are residents of Gram Panchayat Bhadrana, Panchayat Samiti Sanchore, District Jalore. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the State Government issued a notification dated 06.04.2025, whereby a new Revenue Village, namely ‘Bhagwanji Ki Dhani’, came to be constituted by reorganisation of areas falling within the jurisdiction of existing revenue villages in the concerned region. The proposal for creation of the said Revenue Village was processed at various administrative levels and forwarded to the competent authority for approval, with reference to the Government Circulars dated 20.08.2009, 17.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, which lay down guidelines and parameters for creation of new Revenue Villages.
3.1. Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the appellants approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2025, seeking judicial review of the notification creating the new Revenue Village. The said writ petition came to be heard along with a batch of writ petitions raising similar challenges to the creation and naming of newly constituted Revenue Villages in different districts of the State. The learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 25.09.2025, dismissed the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, primarily on the basis that the issues raised stood covered by an earlier judgment rendered in Mala Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2025, decided on 23.09.2025
3.2. Subsequent thereto, the appellants preferred the present intra-court appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 25.09.2025 insofar as it relates to their writ petition. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-State filed an additional affidavit, inter alia, explaining the administrative basis for the creation of the new Revenue Village and the manner in which the distance an
