ORDER : 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the circulars dated 28.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 issued by the State authorities in relation to creation of new revenue village and naming the newly created villages. 2. Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that various persons had filed writ petitions laying challenge to creation of revenue village in name of a particular person, caste, sub-caste or religion, which have been allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed in the bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3470/2025 : Moola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by observing thus:- “16. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is a purpose and intention to incorporate clause 4 in the terms that no particular person, caste, sub-caste or religion should be given undue advantage disturbing the communal harmony in the society. 17. As it has been noted that the proposal sent to the State Government was in utter violation of circular dated 20.8.2009, the Collector, Jodhpur vide his letter dated 10.2.2025 had taken note of the same and issued guidelines for sending the proposal in conformity with the condition/clause mentioned in circular dated 20.8.2009. On the similar line, the Board of Revenue has also issued letter dated 10.2.2025 to District Collector, Barmer. The State Government has also received some representations wherein the same grievances were raised. Taking into consideration all these facts, the State Government brought amendment in circular dated 20.8.2009. Since the learned AAG has already submitted before this Court that the State Government has issued an amendment in clause 4 by circular dated 17.2.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the notification issued by the State Government dated 20.1.2025 is in violation of clause 4 of the circular dated 20.8.2009. Similarly, all such notifications akin to notification dated 20.1.2025 issued by the State Government, which are subject matter in other writ petitions filed before this Court are also dehors the provisions of clause 4 of circular dated 20.8.2009. 18. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition and the batch of writ petitions are disposed of by quashing and setting aside the notification dated 20.1.2025 and other similar notifications issued by the State Government. 18. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition and the batch of writ petitions are disposed of by quashing and setting aside the notification dated 20.1.2025 and other similar notifications issued by the State Government. The State Government is directed to initiate fresh process for creation of new revenue villages adhering to the parameters/guidelines mentioned in the circulars dated 20.8.2009 and 17.2.2025. 19. The directions issued hereinabove shall also be made applicable for the cases in which the notification for creation of new villages has not been issued and the same are in process. 20. The order passed by this Court will be made applicable only qua the petitioners, who have approached this Court. 21. All the pending interlocutory applications as well as the stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 22. Office is directed to keep photostat copy of this order in each of the aforesaid writ petitions.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide aforesaid order, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing the respective notification challenged therein had clearly held that not only the cases involved in said batch of petitions, even new revenue villages in which the notification(s) have not been issued and the same are in process, shall be governed by the circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel argued that in order to overcome the adjudication made by the above referred judgment, the State Government has issued circular dated 28.02.2025 followed by another circular dated 06.03.2025, in such a manner that requirement of not naming the revenue village in the name of particular person, caste or sub-caste etc., has been done away with and consequentially, the respondents have been made free to create and name any revenue village as per choice and wishes of the politically influential persons. 5. Inviting Court’s attention towards clause (4) of the circular dated 06.03.2025, learned counsel argued that since the stipulation made in para No.4 of circular dated 20.08.2009 has been removed, it gives an unbridled power to the respondents to create revenue village in whatever name they deem fit. 6. He further submitted that as per circular dated 17.02.2025, it was obligatory upon the respondent-State to take consent of Gram Panchayat (unanimus) i.e. no objection of Panchayat of the concerned area but such condition too has been removed or altered. 7. 6. He further submitted that as per circular dated 17.02.2025, it was obligatory upon the respondent-State to take consent of Gram Panchayat (unanimus) i.e. no objection of Panchayat of the concerned area but such condition too has been removed or altered. 7. Learned counsel argued that circular dated 06.03.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, more particularly, to the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Moola Ram (supra). 8. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the creation of new revenue village which are 100s in number, is an exercise which needs to be taken by the respondents in order to ensure overall development of the State. He argued that past experience of the State shows that it becomes difficult to create revenue village as consent of the villagers or Gram Sabha and concerned Gram Panchayat is impossible to get. 9. It was argued that the respondents also find it difficult to choose or give name for newly created revenue village because whatever name they choose, the public/villagers are not agreeable, hence, the circular dated 06.03.2025 has been issued in order to smoothen the creation of new villages. 10. He argued that circular dated 06.03.2025 is neither contrary to any statue nor does it affect petitioner’s fundamental rights, therefore, not warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. Before dilating upon circular dated 06.03.2025, it will be apt to go through and bear in mind para No.16 to para No.19 of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed in the case of Moola Ram (supra), which unequivocally provides that there is a purpose or intention of incorporating clause (4) in the circular dated 20.08.2009. 13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that creation of revenue village in particular name, caste, sub-caste or religion or in name of one’s family members is arbitrary. While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court has directed the State Government to undertake exercise of creation of revenue village afresh, while adhering to the guidelines given in circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025. 14. The observations made by the High Court in the case of Moola Ram (supra) are binding upon the State Government. While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court has directed the State Government to undertake exercise of creation of revenue village afresh, while adhering to the guidelines given in circulars dated 20.08.2009 and 17.02.2025. 14. The observations made by the High Court in the case of Moola Ram (supra) are binding upon the State Government. The respondents have not only issued another circular dated 28.02.2025 and substituted para No.4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 but have also completely changed the circular by way subsequent circular dated 06.03.2025. 15. So far as concern of the State Government of obtaining common consensus, rather unanimity of the residents of village and Gram Panchayat is concerned, the same can well be understood. This Court is of the view that in case, where all the stakeholders do not agree with the particular name, the Gram Panchayat or the Aam Sabha can discuss the names given in proposal however, in such case, if unanimity is absent, the Aam Sabha can adopt resolution indicating or suggesting two or three names which can be acted upon by the State. 16. However, so far as name of village in the name of a particular person, religion, caste or sub-caste is concerned, such condition is necessary and mandatory to maintain the societal harmony, as held by this Court in the case of Moola Ram (supra). According to this Court, circulars dated 28.02.2025 so also 06.03.2025 are violative of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 and gives unbridled and arbitrary power to the respondents to fix the name of the revenue village in the name of their favourite persons. 17. Deletion of following expression from circular dated17.02.2025 is illegal and arbitrary:- 18. Because, in the case of Moola Ram (supra), the High Court has clearly held that creating revenue village in name of a particular person, caste, sub-caste, God etc., is illegal and arbitrary. State’s action of deleting aforesaid part of the circular dated 17.02.2025 is in teeth of said judgment. 19. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 20. The State is directed to create revenue villages while keeping the spirit and mandate of the judgment in the case of Moola Ram (supra) so also above quoted part of the circular dated 17.02.2025. It is therefore, ordered that henceforth, no revenue village shall be created in the name of a particular person, religion, caste and sub-caste. 21. 20. The State is directed to create revenue villages while keeping the spirit and mandate of the judgment in the case of Moola Ram (supra) so also above quoted part of the circular dated 17.02.2025. It is therefore, ordered that henceforth, no revenue village shall be created in the name of a particular person, religion, caste and sub-caste. 21. The directions given above shall apply in future so also to cases which are in pipeline or are pending consideration of this Court to the extent of creating revenue village in name of a particular person, religion, caste, sub-caste etc. 22. Stay application so also interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of, accordingly.