Political representation by ruling party member cannot vitiate revenue village creation under Section 16: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ against creation of a revenue village, holding that political representation by a ruling party member does not vitiate an administrative decision under Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act.
Last Updated:
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a State Government notification for creation of a new revenue village “Khichan Vistar” in District Phalodi, holding that creation of revenue villages under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is an administrative decision, that disputed questions of fact regarding compliance with distance criteria cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction, and that a political representation by a ruling party member does not, by itself, vitiate an administrative decision absent proof of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit of the Jodhpur Principal Seat held that unless mala fides, colourable exercise of power, or violation of a statutory provision is positively established, the Court cannot interfere with an administrative decision merely because a political functionary brought the issue to the notice of the authorities.
“The validity of an administrative decision must be examined on the basis of statutory framework and the procedure followed and not solely on the identity of the person who brought the issue to the notice of authorities,” the Court held.
The factual matrix revealed a prolonged administrative history stretching across 2025 and 2026. The State Government, in the course of Panchayati Raj delimitation, first created the revenue village “Khichan Vistar” out of the original village Khichan vide notification dated Mar 22, 2025, following guidelines prescribing, inter alia, a minimum centre-point distance of 1 km between the original and the newly created village. A joint inspection report by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Phalodi dated May 19, 2025 confirmed the distance between the two villages’ centre-points to be more than 1 km from all available routes — 2.1 km via Way A, 3.5 km via Way B, and 1 km via Way C.
The petitioner — a resident of Khichan — submitted representations objecting to the creation of Khichan Vistar, primarily contending that the prescribed distance criteria were not met. A second inquiry report dated Aug 26, 2025 reiterated the earlier distance findings while additionally recording that Khasra No. 156 of Khichan Vistar and Khasra No. 185 of Khichan were adjacent to each other. Relying upon this observation regarding adjacency of khasras, the District Collector recommended cancellation, and the Revenue Department accordingly issued notification dated Nov 17, 2025 cancelling the creation of Khichan Vistar.
Subsequently, a local leader of the ruling party submitted a representation requesting restoration of the original creation notification. The Revenue Department then issued a fresh notification dated Dec 13, 2025 re-creating the revenue village Khichan Vistar. The petitioner challenged this notification, contending it was issued in violation of distance guidelines, that the authorities had no power to reverse a duly gazetted notification, and that the entire exercise was driven by political influence.
The Court rejected all three contentions. On the distance issue, the Court found that both inquiry reports — including the second one — consistently confirmed the distance between centre-points to be well above the 1 km threshold. The adjacency observation in the second report, the Court held, was not a determinative factor: “The decisive consideration is the distance between the centre points of revenue villages for examining the validity of creation of a new revenue village. Mere a finding that relevant khasras are adjacent to each other, in absence any detail regarding the distance between their center point is not determinative factor for analyzing validity of creation of new village.” The petitioner, moreover, had failed to place any material on record disputing the distance measurements.
On the power question, the Court found no statutory provision or binding precedent restraining the competent authority from revisiting a decision or issuing a fresh notification regarding creation of a revenue village. It further held that the impugned notification dated Dec 13, 2025 did not purport to withdraw the gazette notification dated Nov 17, 2025; rather, it was an independent fresh notification, which the State is always empowered to issue under Section 16 of the Act of 1956. Section 16, the Court noted, confers upon the State Government absolute power to create, abolish, or alter villages by notification.
On the political influence argument, the Court applied the principle, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2024), that an administrative decision cannot be invalidated merely because the proposal originated from an elected representative, in the absence of any plea of mala fides or violation of a statutory provision. Relying also on a recent decision of the Karnataka High Court in Usha Mahesh Dasar v. State of Karnataka (2026 SCC OnLine Kar 795), the Court held that mala fides cannot be presumed from the existence of a political representation; they must be affirmatively established by clear and cogent material. The record, the Court found, disclosed that the competent authorities had examined the matter in accordance with applicable guidelines and both inquiry reports before taking the impugned decision.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. The stay application and all other pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24552/2025
Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:23507]
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit (AAG), Mr. B.S. Sodha
