The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has ruled that land recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ (natural water channel) cannot be diverted for any purpose, even if the construction is meant for public utility.
Directing the immediate removal of a road, cremation structures, and every other encroachment raised over such land in Dausa district, the Court observed that,“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.”
It further held that “Administrative convenience or developmental pressures cannot legitimise an action otherwise impermissible in law.”
Holding that natural water channels are integral to the ecological system, the Court ordered the authorities to restore the land to its original recorded status within three months.
Read also: Arrest Without BNSS Compliance Set Aside, Orders for Release of the accused: Allahabad High Court
The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur while allowing a public interest litigation filed by Ramji Lal Saini.
The petitioner submitted that Khasra No. 717/444, admeasuring 2.03 bigha in Village Khatwa of Dausa district, is recorded in the revenue records as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’, but despite its status as a natural water channel, the authorities constructed a gravel road and cremation-related structures over the land.
The respondents included the State of Rajasthan, the District Collector, Dausa, the Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot, the Tehsildar, and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khatwa.
The Court noted that the State itself admitted in its reply that the land continued to be recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ in the revenue records and that portions of it were occupied by a road and crematorium sheds, while the remaining area was being used as a kachcha pathway.
Once this factual position stood admitted, the Court held, the legal consequence became inevitable because the character of the land as a natural water channel could not be altered merely on the ground that the construction served a public purpose.
Emphasising the doctrine of public trust, the Bench observed that the State acts only as a trustee of natural resources and is under a constitutional obligation to preserve them for the benefit of public and future generations.
It reiterated that Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution cast a duty upon both the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, while the right to a clean and sustainable environment forms an inseparable part of Article 21 guaranteeing the right to life.
The Bench noted that, in a State like Rajasthan where water remains a precious resource, natural drains, catchment areas and water channels perform an indispensable ecological function.
It observed that any interference with these watercourses is likely to affect drainage patterns, impede groundwater recharge, and upset the environmental balance.
The Bench found 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….”
The High Court was not persuaded by the State’s argument that the road and cremation facilities had been developed for public use.
The Bench also pointed out that previous judgments had repeatedly directed authorities to protect water bodies and clear encroachments from catchment areas, yet those directions had not been effectively implemented.
Instead, the authorities sought to defend the continued use of the land for purposes that were inconsistent with its recorded character.
Referring to its earlier rulings in Abdul Rehman vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1536/2003), decided on 02.08.2004, and Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004), the Court reiterated that rivers, lakes, nalas and other natural water resources are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public.
These resources, it said, must be preserved in their original form and cannot be diverted for uses that are incompatible with their nature.
It observed that effective conservation of such resources is indispensable for sustainable development and ecological governance.
Allowing the PIL, the High Court directed the respondents to forthwith remove the road, cremation structures, encroachments. and every other construction existing over Khasra No. 717/444 (718/444), restore the land to its original status as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’, and ensure that neither the land nor any adjoining land recorded as a natural water channel is used for any purpose inconsistent with its recorded character.
The Court directed the authorities to comply with the order within three months.
Case: Ramji Lal Saini vs The State of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6614/2021
Date of Order: 07.05.2026
Status: Allowed
