The State Government has the power to name or rename any revenue area, including a city, under section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKER N.P., J.:— These two petitions raise identical question and, therefore, are taken together. Writ Petition No. 5566 of 1995 challenges a Notification issued by the Revenue and Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra on 9-11-1995 publishing a draft notification intimating the intension of the State Government to rename Aurangabad Revenue Division as Marathwada Division, Aurangabad District as Sambhajinagar district and Aurangabad Sub-Division as Sambhajinagar Sub-Division, Aurangabad taluka as Sambhajinagar Taluka and Aurangabad city as Sambhajinagar City. By this Notification, objections, if any, were called from all persons likely to be affected, to be submitted with the Government on or before 8-12-1995 by which the Government proposed to consider the draft notification anytime thereafter. Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995 challenges Notification of 9-11-1995 by which the Government proposed to alter the name of the city of Aurangabad to city of Sambhajinagar and consequentially proposed to amend Government Notification dated 3-12-1982 by substituting word 'the city of Sambhajinagar' for the words 'the city of Aurangabad'. This notification called for objections from the affected persons which were to be filed with the Government on or before 8-12-1995 and thereafter Government proposed to take into consideration draft notification.

2. Shri M.A. Latif, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that there is no power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, to rename any city wherein the Corporation exists and, therefore, proposal to rename city of Aurangabad is totally without jurisdiction. He further contended that though section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 does have a power to name and rename any district, sub-division, taluka or village but that power is exercisable only when a new area is constituted because of the bifurcation or amalgamation of the existing areas and, therefore, both the Notifications issued by the State Government are without jurisdiction.

3. Shri Latif further contents that the citizens of Aurangabad have a right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to life includes the life to preserve the cultural heritage and, therefore, any change in the city of Aurangabad which is very much forming part of culture of the citizens in the town is likely to affect the right of living as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Latif also invited our attention to Article 51-A(f) pointing out that it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve rich heritage our composite culture and submitted that whatever is the duty of citizens of India is equally duty of the State of India and, therefore, State cannot do anything which is contrary to the citizens duties as pointed out in Article 51-A. Shri Latif relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (M.C. Metha (II) v. Union of India and others)1, 1988(1) S.C.C. 471 to submit that fundamental duties are justiciable and a writ would lie if something contrary to the duty is done. Shri Latif cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Ramsharam Autuanuprasi and another v. Union of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 549 to submit that the heritage forms part of the life of the citizens and petition would lie to protect this fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri A.M. Kanade, learned Government Pleader opposing the petition, submitted that the State Government has power to name and rename any division, district, sub-division, taluka or village under section 47 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and as per the definition of village given in section 2(43) “village” includes a town or city and therefore, the State Government has power to name or rename any city, division, district, sub-division, taluka and village. Shri Kanade further contends that the petition is pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document