Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Cw / 14460U / 2021Ramji Lal Saini S/O … vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 7 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6614/2021
Ramji Lal Saini S/o Shri Sonya Saini, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Netawali Dhaani Khatwa, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Dausa (Raj.)
3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj.)
4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khatwa, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG
Ms. Shikha Sharma
Ms. Rashmi Kaushik
Ms. Divya Rathore, AAAG for
Mr. K.P. Mathur, AAG
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
Reportable
07/05/2026
1. The instant writ petition (PIL) has been preferred by the
petitioner claiming the following reliefs :
“It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that your
Lordships may be gracious enough to kindly allow this
Public Interest Litigation, and-
I. to kindly issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the
respondents be directed to remove the construction of
gravel road from gair mumkin Nala land bearing Khasra(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]No. 717/444 rakba 2.03 bigha, situated at Village Khatwa,
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa;
II. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions which
is deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also
be passed in favour of the petitioner;
III. Costs of the writ petition may also be allowed in
favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his
submissions to the limited issue that the land in question is
admittedly recorded in the revenue entries and Jamabandi as ‘Gair
Mumkin Nala’, being a natural water channel, and therefore, no
construction or utilisation thereof for any purpose other than its
recorded nature is legally permissible. It is submitted that the
action of the respondents in constructing a road and permitting
utilisation of the land for crematorium purposes is wholly contrary
to law and violative of the constitutional mandate relating to
environmental protection and preservation of natural resources.
2.1. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Abdul
Rehman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.1536/2003), decided on 02.08.2004, wherein this
Court emphasised the constitutional obligation of the State and
citizens alike to preserve ecological balance and protect natural
resources including water bodies and catchment areas. The
relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:
“9. The problem of environmental pollution has been
recognized as a Worldwide disaster. Development without
regard to the ecological equilibrium has led to an
environmental crisis. Urbanization, modernization and the
race for technological and industrial development has
caused the ecological imbalance. The Constitution (Forty(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]Second Amendment) Act, 1976 has made it a
fundamental duty of the State and citizens to protect and
improve the environment.
10. Article 48 A of the Constitution provides that –
“The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and lo safeguard the forests and wildlife
of the country.”
11. Article 51 A of the constitution provides that –
“To protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild-life and to
have compassion for living creatures.”
12. Thus, the Constitutional provisions, on the one hand
give directions to the State for the protection and on the
other, cast a duty on every citizen to help the
preservation of natural environment.
13. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees
every citizen of India, the right to life and personal
liberty. The Apex Court has elevated the environmental
concerns to the level of a fundamental right as falling
under Article 21 of the constitution.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the
case of Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004), wherein the doctrine of
public trust and the imperative necessity of protecting natural
resources such as rivers, lakes, nalas and catchment areas were
reiterated in unequivocal terms. The relevant portion whereof is
reproduced as hereunder:
“Conservation and preservation of the land forming
part of nadi, pond, lakes, river bed and catchment
area etc.? (Question No.15)
200. As laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board’s case (supra), the
natural resources like air, sea, water and forest have such
a great importance to the people as a whole that it would
be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]ownership. The court laid down that the Doctrine of Public
Trust enjoins upon the Government to protect the
resources for the enjoinment of the general public rather
than to use for private ownership or commercial purposes.
201. The necessity of protecting the forest, lakes, rivers,
wildlife has been further emphasised by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Intellectual Forum’s case (supra).
202. As noticed hereinabove, the learned AG and AAG
have fairly conceded before this court that the natural
resources such as hills, notified area, forest, river, lake
etc. cannot be disturbed while preparing the Master
Development Plan or modifying the same.
203. It is pertinent to note that in ‘Abdul Rahman v.
State“, 2005 RRT 59, a Bench of this court has issued
direction to the State Government to remove
encroachment in the catchment area of the water bodies.
That apart, in “Suo Motu vs. State of Rajasthan“
(S.B.C.Writ Petition No.11153/11), disposed of by Jaipur
Bench of this court vide order dated 29.5.12, specific
directions are issued restraining allotment of the land
falling in catchment areas of water reservoirs like Johar,
Nala, Tank, River, Pond etc. and it is further directed that
the appropriate action shall be taken for cancellation of the
allotment made in defiance of Section 16 of the Act of
1955.
204. But the fact remains that no effective steps have
been taken so far for conservation and preservation of the
natural resources i.e. hills, forest, river, lake, other water
bodies and the encroachment thereon by unscrupulous
persons continues unabated. We earnestly feel that the
State Authorities should take a drive to remove all
encroachments made over the natural resources noticed
hereinabove and the unauthorised activities operating
thereon, with utmost expedition. ”
3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents-State submitted that the road and
crematorium have been developed for public utility purposes and,
therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted in exercise of
extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
5. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
paragraph No.1 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents-
State, which reads as under:
“1. That the contents of para No.1 of the writ petition are
not admitted in the manner stated and are replied in
terms that the land in question bearing Khasra
No.717/444 measuring 2 bigha 3 biswa is Gair Mumkin
Nala in the revenue record and as per report of the
Patwari Halka Khatwa, on some part of the land in
question there is a road and on some part of the land
there are crematorium canopies. The remaining land is
vacant which is being used as a kachcha way. There is no
encroachment by any individual over the land in
question.”
5.1. The aforesaid stand taken by the State leaves no manner of
doubt that the land in question is admittedly recorded as ‘Gair
Mumkin Nala’ in the revenue records. Once the nature of the land
as a natural water channel stands admitted, the consequential
legal position becomes self-evident.
6. This Court notes that a ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ constitutes a
natural drainage and water flow channel forming an integral part
of the ecological framework and hydrological system of the area
concerned. Such lands cannot be permitted to be diverted,
obstructed or altered for any non-conforming purpose merely on
the ground that the utilisation is for a public purpose. The doctrine
of public trust obligates the State to act as a trustee of natural
resources and mandates preservation thereof for the benefit of the
general public and future generations.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]
6.1. The constitutional scheme under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of
the Constitution of India casts a corresponding duty upon the
State as well as citizens to protect and improve the natural
environment. The right to a clean and sustainable environment
has repeatedly been recognised as an inseparable facet of Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that preservation of
water bodies, natural drains, catchment areas and traditional
water channels assumes even greater significance in a State like
Rajasthan, where ecological conditions and water scarcity render
conservation of every natural water resource indispensable. Any
obstruction or alteration of a natural water channel has the
potential of adversely affecting drainage patterns, groundwater
recharge and environmental equilibrium.
8. This Court is further of the considered view that unless
natural water bodies and water channels are zealously protected
and preserved, the right to a dignified and sustainable life of the
common citizen stands seriously imperilled. In contemporary
times, conservation and preservation of water resources constitute
an indispensable component of sustainable development and
ecological governance. Though increasing urbanisation,
developmental expansion and demographic pressures may give
rise to competing land-use demands, such considerations cannot
legitimise actions which are contrary to law and destructive of
ecological balance. Any arbitrary diversion or utilisation of land
recorded as a natural water channel, particularly by the State
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]
itself, deserves strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be
countenanced.
9. The justification sought to be advanced by the respondents
that the land has been utilised for construction of a road and
crematorium for public purposes cannot be accepted. Public utility
cannot be achieved at the cost of destruction or impairment of
natural resources which the State is constitutionally and legally
bound to preserve. Administrative convenience or developmental
pressures cannot legitimise an action otherwise impermissible in
law.
10. This Court further finds that despite categorical judicial
pronouncements rendered in Abdul Rehman (supra) and Gulab
Kothari (supra), the respondents have failed to discharge their
statutory and constitutional obligations towards preservation of
natural water channels and instead have sought to justify their
utilisation for purposes alien to their recorded character.
11. In view of the admitted factual position and the settled legal
principles governing preservation of natural resources and water
bodies, this Court is satisfied that interference in the present
matter is warranted.
12. Consequently, the present writ petition (PIL) is hereby
allowed.
12.1. The respondents are directed to remove forthwith any road,
crematorium structure, encroachment or any other construction
existing over land bearing Khasra No.717/444 (718/444),
admeasuring 2.03 bigha, situated at Village Khatwa, Tehsil Lalsot,
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-6614/2021]
District Dausa, recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’, and restore the
land to its original recorded nature.
12.2. The respondents shall further ensure that no portion of the
aforesaid land, or any adjoining land recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin
Nala’ in the revenue records, is utilised for any purpose
inconsistent with its recorded character.
12.3. Due compliance of the present order be made within a
period of three months from today.
13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
3-Sudheer/nishantk-
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:40:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:16 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
