1. Challenges to delimitation of panchayats and municipalities through shifting villages, altering boundaries, and notifications; elections pending. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.
Mamta W/o Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14354, 17637, 18395, 18863 of 2019
Decided On : 26-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : J.S. Bhaleria, Moti Singh, Vinay Jain, Darshan Jain, Manoj Bohra, Sanjay Nahar, Rekha Ram Choudhary, Ram Prakash Dudi, Shambhoo Singh Rathore, Mukesh Vyas, J.K. Bhaiya, Gopal Sandu, Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Arjun Singh, Rajesh Joshi, Akshiti Singhvi, C.R. Choudhary, Deependra Singh Shehawat, S.S. Gaur, J.S. Bhanwaria, Kunal Upadhyay, Sahee Ram, Rishabh Dadhich, Rajvendra Sarasvat, Lakshya Singh Udawat, Anil Bidan Halu, Iqbal Khan, Devkinandan Vyas, D.L.R. Vyas, Vikram Singh Jaitawat, Dron Kaushik,
For the Respondents: Rajesh Panwar, Ayush Gehlot, Rakesh Sharma, I.R. Choudhary, Pawan Bharti, K.S. Solanki, Yogesh Sharma, Trilok Joshi, Anil Kumar
For the Appellants : J.S. Bhaleria, Moti Singh, Vinay Jain, Darshan Jain, Manoj Bohra, Sanjay Nahar, Rekha Ram Choudhary, Ram Prakash Dudi, Shambhoo Singh Rathore, Mukesh Vyas, J.K. Bhaiya, Gopal Sandu, Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Arjun Singh, Rajesh Joshi, Akshiti Singhvi, C.R. Choudhary, Deependra Singh Shehawat, S.S. Gaur, J.S. Bhanwaria, Kunal Upadhyay, Sahee Ram, Rishabh Dadhich, Rajvendra Sarasvat, Lakshya Singh Udawat, Anil Bidan Halu, Iqbal Khan, Devkinandan Vyas, D.L.R. Vyas, Vikram Singh Jaitawat, Dron Kaushik,
For the Respondents: Rajesh Panwar, Ayush Gehlot, Rakesh Sharma, I.R. Choudhary, Pawan Bharti, K.S. Solanki, Yogesh Sharma, Trilok Joshi, Anil Kumar
Important Points
De-limitation of local bodies shifting villages between Panchayats or Municipalities does not warrant judicial interference if the highest court has upheld such decisions and provided administrative remedies, especially when such interference would delay the processing of overdue local elections.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Local Government
Headnote
(A) Constitutional Law - De-limitation of local bodies - Shifting of villages between Panchayats and Municipalities - Notification challenging the reduction of boundaries - Issue no longer res integra - Decision of the highest court emphasizes that liberty granted to local bodies to approach competent authorities for safeguarding constitutional rights provides sufficient protection - No further interference warranted in judgment passed by the High Court. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Election Law - Delay in conducting elections for local bodies - Court’s reluctance to disturb the election process under progress when the government has committed to completing them by a specific deadline - Continuity of electoral process takes priority over challenges to de-limitation where no infringement of legally vested rights is established. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions were filed challenging a notification dated 30.12.2025 regarding de-limitation, specifically the shifting of villages from one local governance body to another and the reduction of boundaries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues raised had already been thoroughly considered and decided by a coordinate bench and upheld by the highest court. It was noted that there is no infringement of any constitutional or legally vested right and that local bodies are at liberty to approach competent authorities if difficulties arise in management or service provision.
Issues: Whether the court should interfere with a notification concerning the de-limitation and shifting of villages between local governing bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the highest court has dismissed associated petitions and held that provided protections are sufficient, and considering the urgent need to conduct overdue local elections, no further interference is warranted in the government's de-limitation orders.
Result: All the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(B) Election Law - Delay in conducting elections for local bodies - Court’s reluctance to disturb the election process under progress when the government has committed to completing them by a specific deadline - Continuity of electoral process takes priority over challenges to de-limitation where no infringement of legally vested rights is established. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions were filed challenging a notification dated 30.12.2025 regarding de-limitation, specifically the shifting of villages from one local governance body to another and the reduction of boundaries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues raised had already been thoroughly considered and decided by a coordinate bench and upheld by the highest court. It was noted that there is no infringement of any constitutional or legally vested right and that local bodies are at liberty to approach competent authorities if difficulties arise in management or service provision.
Issues: Whether the court should interfere with a notification concerning the de-limitation and shifting of villages between local governing bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the highest court has dismissed associated petitions and held that provided protections are sufficient, and considering the urgent need to conduct overdue local elections, no further interference is warranted in the government's de-limitation orders.
Result: All the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued their cases merit independent examination; court found issue precluded by prior decisions and Supreme Court dismissal. (Para 1 , 6 )
3. Court held issue concluded by precedent, including Supreme Court dismissal, finding no infringement of constitutional rights and no interference warranted. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Where Supreme Court has affirmed High Court judgment on delimitation, no further interference is warranted; elections should proceed. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. All writ petitions disposed of; no interference with state orders; elections to proceed; pending applications disposed. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Are challenges to delimitation orders barred by prior judgments upheld by the Supreme Court?
Yes, where the issue has been decided by a coordinate bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court, subsequent petitions raising the same grounds are not entertained. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
7. Does delimitation of panchayats infringe constitutional or legally vested rights?
No, the Supreme Court found no infringement; thus no interference is warranted, but liberty exists to approach competent authorities for difficulties. (Para 3 , 5 )
8. Should election processes be disturbed due to delimitation challenges?
No, courts should not disturb ongoing election processes, especially when elections are already delayed and directions exist to conduct them. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER :
1. The issue raised in these writ petitions is no more res integra while the learned counsels appearing for the respective writ petitions strongly argue that their cases should be independently examined.
2. The common threat amongst all the writ petitions is that they are essentially challenging the de-limitation which has been done by way of shifting the village from one Panchayat to another, or from one Municipality to another, or reducing the boundaries and also in relation to the notification issued on 30.12.2025.
3. Subsequently, after the issuance of the de-limitation order dated 30.12.2025, some of the petitions were admitted by this Court relating to the notification dated 30.12.2025 and other cases were decided by the Court earlier in the case of Sheela Kumari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , DBCWP No. 7718/2025, decided on 14.11.2025. In a second round of litigation, another co-ordinate Bench decided the case of Sunil Jangid & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DBCWP No. 988/2026, decided on 21.01.2026 alongwith the another case of Jai Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SLP (C) No. 4977/2026, decided on 16.02.2026 was also considered. Several SLPs were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came before the Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice who has considered and pass orders dismissing the SLPs. The recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jai Singh (supra)” on 16.02.2026 deserves to be noticed as under:-
“1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
2. It seems to us that the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 in SLP (C) No. 34/2026 provides sufficient protection to the Gram Panchayats to approach the Competent Authority for safeguarding their constitutional rights.
3. In view of the above, no further interference is warranted in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.
4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.”
4. Keeping in view thereto, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the finality to the issues and held that no further interference is warranted in the judgment passed by the High Court.
5. In Sunil Jangid (supra) the High Court after considering the law as laid down earlier passed the following order :-
“...18. These writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions has been thoroughly considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sheela Kumari (supra), wherein specific questions were framed and answered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court which have again been raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions and therefore, the same require no interference; secondly the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Villagers of Revenue village Singhania and another (supra); thirdly he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Villagers of Revenue village Singhania and another (supra) has considered the fact that there is no infringement of any constitutional or legally vested right of the petitioners and on that ground the SLP was dismissed and granted liberty to the Gram Panchayat that in case of any difficulty in its management or in providing services to the village residents, the Gram Panchayats will be at liberty to approach the competent authorities to shift the headquarter; fourthly the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ratan Lal (supra),wherein the same issue was under challenge, the said PIL petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 considering the judgment in the matter of Sheela Kumari and villagers of
