The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, while allowing a Public Interest Litigation, has laid down that land recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ in revenue records constitutes a natural drainage and water flow channel forming an integral part of the ecological framework, and no construction or utilisation thereof for any non-conforming purpose — not even for a public utility — is legally permissible. The Division Bench directed the State respondents to remove all constructions existing over such land and restore it to its original recorded nature within three months.
The PIL was filed challenging the construction of a gravel road and establishment of crematorium canopies over land bearing Khasra No. 717/444, admeasuring 2.03 bigha, situated at Village Khatwa, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, which was admittedly recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ in the revenue entries and Jamabandi. The petitioner contended that such utilisation was wholly contrary to law and violative of the constitutional mandate relating to environmental protection and preservation of natural resources. The State, in its own reply, candidly admitted that the land in question was indeed recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ and that a road and crematorium canopies existed over portions of it. The Court noted that once the character of the land as a natural water channel stood admitted by the State itself, the consequential legal position became self-evident.
The Court firmly rejected the State’s justification that the road and crematorium were developed for public utility purposes and therefore no judicial interference was warranted. It held 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. Administrative convenience or developmental pressures, the Court categorically observed, cannot legitimise an action otherwise impermissible in law. The doctrine of public trust, the Court reiterated, obligates the State to act as a trustee of natural resources and mandates their preservation for the benefit of the general public and future generations, not for diversion to purposes inconsistent with their natural character.
Placing reliance on the constitutional scheme under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, which cast corresponding duties upon both the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, the Court further held that the right to a clean and sustainable environment is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also drew from its earlier pronouncements in Abdul Rehman v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1536/2003) and Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/2004), observing with concern that despite categorical judicial directions issued in those cases mandating preservation of natural water bodies, nalas and catchment areas, the respondents had failed to discharge their statutory and constitutional obligations and instead sought to justify utilisation of such land for purposes entirely alien to its recorded character.
The Court observed with particular emphasis 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 acute water scarcity render conservation of every natural water resource indispensable. Any obstruction or alteration of a natural water channel, the Court noted, has the potential of adversely affecting drainage patterns, groundwater recharge and environmental equilibrium — consequences which strike at the very root of sustainable life and ecological governance. The Court made it clear that any arbitrary diversion or utilisation of land recorded as a natural water channel, particularly by the State itself, deserves strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be countenanced.
Allowing the PIL, the Court directed the respondents to remove forthwith all roads, crematorium structures, encroachments and any other construction existing over the said land and to restore it to its original recorded nature. The respondents were further directed to ensure that no portion of the said land, or any adjoining land recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ in the revenue records, is utilised for any purpose inconsistent with its recorded character. Compliance was directed to be made within three months from the date of the order.
Case Details:
Ramji Lal Saini versus State of Rajasthan & Others.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6614/2021
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:19286-DB
Decided by: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
Date of Order: May 7, 2026
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Dharmendra Pareek
Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. G.S. Gill AAG, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Ms. Rashmi Kaushik, Ms. Divya Rathore AAAG
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 