[2026:RJ-JD:11483-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1514/2025 Bhoja Ram S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bheelo Ki Dhani, Dantal, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.

4. Tehsildar Falsund, District Jaisalmer.

5. Himmata Ram S/o Dadu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Dantal, Tehsil Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ikban Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Ms. Kanchan Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

09/03/2026 I.A. No.01/2025:-

1. The matter comes upon an application (Inward No.01/2025) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the appeal.

2. The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Office has pointed out a defect that the appeal is barred by 38 days. The appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act asserting therein that the appellant was not impleaded as a party to the present writ petition, although he is a resident of the same village, and immediately upon coming to know about passing of the order in question, the present appeal has been filed. It is stated that the delay is nominal and there is sufficient justification for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 3. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Kanchan Jodha, learned counsel for the respondents, does not oppose the application for condonation of delay and submits that since the delay is nominal, thus the same may be condoned.

4. Considering the submissions made, the application (Inward No.01/2025) is allowed. The delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. No.02/2025:-

1. The appellant has filed the present application for granting leave to appeal, while asserting that he is a resident of the village and his rights have been infringed by way of the impugned order, he was not impleaded as a party and, since he has a substantial interest in the naming of the village, which according to him is based upon the name of the local deity, the leave may be granted. 2. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, as also the contents of the application, the same is allowed. Leave is granted and the case in hand is treated as a regular Special Appeal (Writ).

IN D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1514/2025:-

1. Heard the case on merits.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent–State Government had issued a Circular dated

20.08.2009 specifying the criteria for creation of new revenue villages. As per Clause 4 of the circular in question, the name of the village was not to be kept in the name of a particular person, religion, caste or sub-caste and, as far as possible, the name was to be decided as per the consensus amongst the villagers. He submits that Clause 4 of the aforesaid circular was amended by a fresh Circular dated 17.02.2025, which, although provided for an embargo on naming the village in the name of a person, religion, caste or sub-caste, however, granted liberty to name the village in the name of a Martyr, a popular person, etc. He also submits that based upon the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the name of the new revenue village, which was carved out from the existing revenue village “Dantal”, was proposed to be named as “Shree Chhotsa Nagar”. He further submits that the private respondent had filed a writ petition challenging the same, while asserting that the word “Chhotsa” has been used with reference to Chhotu Singh @ Chhotsa, who was the brother of the then Sarpanch and, therefore, the village was being named in the name of a person, which was not permissible as per the circular in question.

3.