Sunil Paliwal v. Local Self Government Department

NGT10 Jan 2025Original Application No. 277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application challenging a notification declaring Gadisar Lake boundaries. The Court held that the High Court was already seized of the issues regarding the notification's legality and encroachments, rendering the application not maintainable here.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application No. 277/2024 (CZ) stands disposed of by declaring the issues not maintainable before the NGT.

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.1

¶2

EFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.277/2024(CZ) (I.A.No.154/2024)

¶4

Sunil Paliwal Applicant (s) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of Hearing: 10.01.2025

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶6

For Applicant (s): Mr.Manas Ranchhor Khatri,Adv.

¶7

For Respondent(s) :

¶8

ORDER

¶9

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayer :

¶10

A, Issue order or direction, the notification dated 12.03.2021 or notification dt 12.03.2021 may kindly be modified or be quashed and set aside to the extent that it does not include the Additional Land adjoining the Gadisar Lake registered in Revenue Record as Gair Mumkin Agor and the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the lake boundaries •and protected area under section 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Lake Development Authority Act, 2015 and Rules made thereunder as per the notification/ advertisement issued by the District Collector Jaislmer on 12.06.1961 and redeclare the lake boundaries and protected area of the Gadisar lake accordingly.

¶11

B. Issue order or direction, the encroachment made upon the catchment area, lake area, flow area, stream

¶12

¶13

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶14

area, basin and protected area of the Gadisar Lake in Jaisalmer in all forms for residential, commercial or any other purpose may kindly be demolished, prohibited, restricted, controlled, regulated and supervised and the lake area and its protected area as well as the land of the Gair Mumkin Agor registered in the revenue record shown in Jamabandi as Khasra No. 477, 478, 479, 486, 487, 488, 487, 490 and 494 may kindly be restored and the water body in terms of the notification/ advertisement dated 12.06.1961 (Annex A/16) may kindly be restored and any deviation of the land by the respondents for any purpose may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the entire catchment area be restored to its original position as it existed at the time of issuance of notification dated 12.06.1961.

¶15

c. Issue order or direction, The respondent may kindly be directed to place on record, the record of the file maintained by the District Collector pursuant to the notification/advertisement dated 12.06.1961 for declaration of the catchment area of the Gadsar Talab and the lake boundaries and protected area in terms of the provisions of the Rajasthan Lakes (Development and Protection) Authority Act, 2015 and demarcation exercise

¶16

may kindly be undertaken while considering the location, points, areas included in the advertisement/ notification dated 12.06.1961 by the District Collector and a fresh/ re-notification issued after conducting the said exercise.

¶17

D. Issue order or direction to the District Level Lakes(Development and Protection) Committee to chaired by the District Collector Jaisalmer to conduct the survey of the catchment area of Gadisar Lake 2

¶18

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶19

considering the location, points, areas included and specified in the advertisement/ notification dated 12.06.1961 with the help of revenue authorities to measure and produce the exact coordinates and locations in comparison to the status of the revenue record maintained by the revenue authorities today before the Hon' ble Court.

¶20

E. Issue order or direction to summon or call for producing the record of the file maintained with respect to advertisement/ notification dated 12.06.1961 and all further proceedings conducted in furtherance of issuing the advertisement/notification dt 12.06.1961 may kindly be directed to be produced before the Hon'ble Court.

¶21

Perusal of the petition /application discloses that following writ petitions has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court for determination of the issues raised in this application, these

¶22

are :

¶23

i. DB Civil W.P. No 752 of 2016 ii. DB Civil W.P. No 13609 of 2019 iii. Writ Contempt Petition No. 102 of 2020 iv. DB Civil Miscellaneous Contempt No 90 of 2000 v. DB Civil W.P. No. 4271 of 2019

¶24

In DB Civil W.P. No. 752 of 2016 connected with DB Civil W.P. No. 13609 of 2019, Hon’ble the Court (High Court of Judicator for Rajasthan at Jodhpur) passed an order as

¶25

follows :

¶26

“1. By an order dated 15.1.16, this Court taking cognizance of a detailed report published in “Rajasthan Patrika”, a leading daily newspaper of the State, pointing out deleterious inaction on the part of the State

¶27

¶28

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶29

authorities in maintaining and conserving the old temples and the water bodies of Jodhpur City namely, Achalnath Shivalaya, Kunj Bihari Mandir, Arna Jharna, Bhadreshiya Tirth & Vishnu Kund, directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to register the news item published as Writ Petition (PIL) and issued notices to the State of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jodhpur and Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. In response to the notice, the respondents put in appearance before this Court .

¶30

On 11.2.16, this Court issued directions to the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and District Collector, Jodhpur to prepare a complete plan for protection and development of the water bodies as well as the old temples. Directions were issued to clean the areas adjoining to the lakes and temples. Later, vide order dated 20.4.16, the notices were directed to be issued to the Commissioner, Devasthan to explain as to what steps are being taken to protect all the properties of Devasthan in the city of Jodhpur. The progress of maintenance, cleaning and conservation of the lakes and temples was being monitored by this Court by issuing appropriate directions. In the meantime, the issue with regard to the framing of new policy by the Department of Devasthan for protection of Devasthan properties in the State of Rajasthan and in other part of the country, cropped up for consideration of this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued, the Department of Devasthan produced the list of the properties of Devasthan before this Court. The Court expressed its concern to protect and secure the immovable properties of the Devasthan in the State of Rajasthan and throughout the country. The Department of Devasthan, Government of Rajasthan, placed on record Rajasthan Devasthan Rent Policy, 2021, which has come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2021.

¶31

¶32

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶33

Pursuant to order dated 16.4.21 passed by this Court, on 6.8.21, Mr. Bhavit Sharma, Amicus Curiae filed detailed composite affidavit regarding the compliance made and issues raised in the present writ petition. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted the report giving the details regarding the condition of the various lakes/water bodies of the Jodhpur City, namely, Gulab Sagar, Bal Samand Lake, Ummed Sagar, Goverdhan Talab, and drawn attention of this Court to dilapidated condition, lack of cleanliness, contamination and massive destruction of the lakes and other water bodies of Jodhpur City. The Amicus Curias has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the encroachments made on the catchment area of the water bodies. It is pointed out that Bal Samand Lake which is fed by several feeder canals is on the brink of extinction due to illegal mining activities carried out in the vicinity of Bal Samand Lake and feeder canals.

¶34

The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur has filed response to the report submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, wherein it is stated that Gulab Sagar and Fateh Sagar lakes are under the control of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. The steps were taken by the Municipal Corporation time and again for renovation and beautification of the water bodies. The fountains were also installed, but due to continuous throwing of garbages by the locals, the problem still persists. It is pointed out that the State Government has sanctioned Rs. 3 crores for beautification, renovation of Gulab Sagar and Fateh Sagar and pursuant thereto, the Municipal Corporation has already invited Expression of Interest (EoI) for consultancy work for preparing detailed project report for beautification and renovation of Gulab Sagar and Fateh Sagar. It is pointed out that for complete development of Baiji Ka Talab, a detailed project report

¶35

¶36

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶37

of 7.22 crores has been prepared. Regarding Ganglao Talab, DPR of 6.02 crores was prepared but due to financial constraint, the work could not be undertaken. Regarding Ummed Sagar and Bal Samand Lake, it is stated that though the said water bodies fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, the Ummed Sagar is maintained by Irrigation & Public Health Engineering Department.

¶38

Vide order dated 2.9.21, yet another Writ Petition D.B.Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.13609/19, pending before this Court, which relate to Gadisar Lake of Jaisalmer, was directed to be listed alongwith present writ petition. In the said writ petition filed, the petitioner has sought direction to declare Gadisar Lake and the area adjoining thereto, as protected area as per the provisions of Rajasthan Lakes (Protection and Development) Authority Act, 2015 (‘the Act’). The petitioner has also questioned the resolutions adopted by Municipal Council, Jaisalmer for development and beautification of Gadisar Lake, which according to the petitioner would damage very foundation of ‘Talab Ki Paal’ comprising khasra no.488 & 490 of Revenue village Jaisalmer.

¶39

It is noticed that in the first instance, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated Rajasthan Lakes (Protection and Development) Authority Ordinance, 2015 (‘Ordinance,2015’), in exercise of the power conferred under Article 213 of the Constitution of India, providing for development and protection of the lakes in the State of Rajasthan, for constitution of Lake Development Authority (‘the Authority’) for the purposes and the matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto.

¶40

In exercise of the power conferred by Section 8 of the Ordinance, 2015, the State Government vide notification dated 23.2.15, published in Rajasthan Gazettee dated 2.3.15 constituted the Authority, for the

¶41

¶42

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶43

purpose of protection and development of the lakes and carry out all the functions entrusted to it under the Ordinance, 2015. The Authority in its turn in exercise of the power conferred under Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2015, constituted District Level Lakes Protection and Development Committee (‘District Level Committee’) for each districts of Rajasthan for the purpose of carrying out its functions provided under Section 6 of Ordinance, 2015. The constitution of the Authority and District Level Committee, is as follows:

¶44

Rajasthan Lakes Development Authority

¶45

1.	Principal Governme	Se nt	cretary, Local Self	Chairman
2	Nominee	of	Principal Secretary,	Member
	Finance Secretary	not	below the rank of
3	Nominee	of	Principal Secretary,	Member
	Revenue Secretary	not	below the rank of
4	Commissio	ner,	Panchayati Raj	Member
5	Nominee Secretary/ Developme not below	of Prin nt a the r	the Additional Chief cipal Secretary, Urban nd Housing Department ank of Joint Secretary.	Member
6	Secretary,	Wat	er Resource Department	Member
7	Nominee Conservat rank of Ad Forest	of or o ditio	the Principal Chief f Forest not below the nal Chief Conservator of	Member
8	Member Pollution C	Sec ontr	retary of Rajasthan ol Board	Member
9	Director, F	isher	ies Department	Member

¶46

¶47

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶48

10	Director, Tourism Department	Member
11	Director, Local Bodies	Member
		Secretary
12	Two experts nominated by the State	Member
	Government

¶49

District Level Lakes Protection and Development Committee for each district

¶50

1	District Collector	Chairman
2	Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality of District Head Quarter	Member Secretary
3	Secretary of the concern Development Authority/Urban Improvement Trust	Member
4	Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad	Member
5	Conservator of Forest or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest. In case there are more than one officer of this rank posted, concerned CCF shall nominate one officer from among them to this Committee.	Member
6	Superintending Engineer of his nominee not below the rank of Executive Engineer of Water Resources Department	Member
7	Nominee of Director, Tourism Department	Member
8	Nominee of Director, Fisheries Department	Member
9	Nominee of Member Secretary of Rajasthan Pollution Control Board	Member

¶51

8. Later, the State Legislature enacted the Act and accordingly, by virtue of Section 37 of the Act, the Ordinance, 2015 stood repealed. However, notwithstanding such repeal, all the things done, action taken or orders made under the Ordinance, 2015 are deemed to have been done, taken or made under the Act.

¶52

¶53

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶54

9. Vide sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, it is declared that notwithstanding any contained in any law, instrument or order, protection and development of all lakes, from the date of commencement of the Act, shall vest in the State Government and no person shall undertake any activity whatsoever within the boundaries of a lake or use or draw any produce or water from a lake otherwise than in accordance with the permission granted by the Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 mandates that the Authority shall not grant any permission under sub-section (1) unless it is satisfied that such permission will not have an adverse impact on protection and development of the lake.

¶55

10. Section 4 of the Act, empowers the State Government either suo moto or on the basis of information available with it or on the recommendation of the Authority, to declare and specify the boundaries of a lake and a geographical area around a lake, to be the protected area, by notification published in Official Gazette. As per subsection (4) of Section 4, the notification issued under the said section shall prevail notwithstanding any other Rajasthan law for time being in force.

¶56

11. Section 5 of the Act deals with regulation of activities in the protected area and Section 6 deals with protection and development of lakes, which may be beneficially quoted :

¶57

“5. Regulation of Activities in the protected area.-

¶58

(1) Every town planning authority shall consult the Authority before preparing spatial or development plan of any area comprising a lake and no spatial or development plan in respect of an area comprising lake shall be approved or enforced without the prior approval of the Authority.

¶59

¶60

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶61

(2) No construction shall be undertaken in the protected area without obtaining prior permission of the Authority in the prescribed manner.

¶62

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, either suo-moto on the basis of information available with it or on the recommendation of the Authority, specify such other activities in the protected area as it considers expedient for the protection and development of the lake, which shall be prohibited or be undertaken only after obtaining prior approval of the Authority, in the prescribed manner.

¶63

(4) The Authority shall not grant any permission under sub-sections (2) or (3) if it is satisfied that such permission is likely to have adverse impact on protection and development of the lake.

¶64

6 . Protection and development of lakes .-

¶65

(1) Subject to any Central law relating to forest or environment, and policies or guidelines including any guidelines for National Plan on Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystem issued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time, the Authority shall undertake protection and development of the lakes and for this purpose, the Authority shall carry out following functions, namely :-

¶66

(a) to carry out survey and study of lakes and prepare, maintain and publish, in the prescribed manner, the record of lakes including their boundaries, flow area and such other matters as are deemed necessary for protection and development of the lakes;

¶67

(b) to prepare and recommend to the State Government plans, projects or schemes for protection or development of lakes;

¶68

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶69

¶70

(c) to implement such plans, projects or schemes of protection or development of lakes as may be approved by the State Government;

¶71

(d) to implement projects and raising financial resources from public and private source including Corporate Social Responsibility fund (CSR);

¶72

(e) to recommend to the State Government lake boundaries and protected area;

¶73

(f) to prevent and stop unauthorised activities within lake boundaries or the protected area;

¶74

(g) to prevent, stop and remove unauthorised construction in the protected area .

¶75

(2) The Authority may, if it considers expedient in the interest of protection or development of a lake so to do, remove any building, structure or any other object of obstruction within the protected area or the flow area of a lake :

¶76

Provided that no building, structure or any other object of obstruction which is a private property shall be removed unless-

¶77

(i) Prior approval of the State Government has been obtained:

¶78

(ii) the owner and occupier, if any, of the property has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing;

¶79

(iii) the owner of the property has been paid compensation for the damages to be sustained by him due to such removal.

¶80

(3) While determining the amount of compensation under this section, the Authority shall follow the principles of determination of compensation laid down by any law for the time being in force providing for compulsory acquisition of similar property.

¶81

¶82

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶83

(4) If any person entitled to compensation under this Section disputes sufficiency of the amount of compensation, he may file an appeal to the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the property is situated, within ninety days from the date of order of the Authority and the decision of District Judge shall be final.”

¶84

12. In Writ Petition No.13609/19, on 18.12.20, the learned AAG sought time to bring on record the facts regarding steps taken by the Authority and the State Government for protection and development of the lakes in the State of Rajasthan after coming into force of the Act. Later, by way of an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is brought on record that vide notification dated 12.3.21 issued by the State Government, the specified lake area of Gadisar Lake of Jaisalmer has already been declared protected area in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4 of the Act and vide yet another notification issued under Section 5, the activities as specified in the notification have been prohibited in the protected area.

¶85

13. By way of the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents in response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said writ petition (Gadisar), it is brought on record that after constitution of the District Level Committee in each districts, only 7 proposals were received from District Level Committees, out of which, 6 proposal were approved for declaring the lake area as protected area, by the State Government, which are as under:

¶86

1. Mansagar Jal Mahal Jaipur.

¶87

2. Udaisagar Udaipur

¶88

3. Fatesh Sagar Udaipur

¶89

4. Anasagar Ajmer

¶90

5. Gap Sagar Dungarpur

¶91

¶92

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶93

6. Sursagar Jheel Jodhpur

¶94

Thereafter, Gadisar Lake has been declared as protected area, as already noticed above.

¶95

14. It is also brought on record by the State that the proposal for development of 10 lakes was submitted under the National Lake Conservation Programme, the DPRs were also prepared and the same were forwarded to Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) of Government of India. The proposal remained pending, in the meantime, National Lake Conservation Project was merged in National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic EcoSystem (NPCA). The MoEF advised the State Government that instead of insisting upon approval of 10 DPRs of 10 lakes, the State Government should prioritise and send proposals of 1 or 2 lakes of the State for approval under NPCA. The State Government vide communication dated 8.1.17 sent the proposals of Gap Sagar Lake Dungarpur and Gundolav Talab of Kishangarh for approval. Vide communication dated 24.7.18, MoEF informed the Authority to send revised DPR for Gap Sagar and Gundolav Talab taking into consideration the changed ground realities, cost escalation and revised funding pattern, as per NPCA guidelines. The cost of the project was to be shared by the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 60:40. However, the revised plans submitted were not approved by the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan expressing its inability to bear 40% of the cost of project, as per the revised DPR.

¶96

15. It is also brought on record that during the period from 23.11.07 to 24.6.10, the DPRs of about 5 lakes were approved by the Government of India and works for conservation of these lakes were undertaken. The work of Ana Sagar Lake, Pushkar Sarovar and Pichhola Lake Udaipur has been completed utilising the funds of NLCP sanctioned prior to 1.4.16. Under the Smart Cities Mission, the work on the boundaries of Ana Sagar Lake and Sagar Vihar with the amount sanctioned Rs.5.46 crores and 2.1 crores respectively, is in progress. But the fact

¶97

¶98

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶99

remains that on account of the State Government declining to share the cost in the proportion proposed under NPCA, the development project of the two lakes of the State namely Gap Sagar Lake Dungarpur and Gundolav Talab of Kishangarh could not be undertaken and no further development projects were mooted by the State Government for approval under NPCA. That apart, on account of deleterious inaction on the part of District Level Committees of various districts, even the process for declaring various lakes of the State as protected area under the provisions of the Act, has not commenced as yet. 16. In Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435, a Bench of this Court has already issued directions to the State Government to remove encroachment in the catchment area of the water bodies and in Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11153/11, decided on 29.5.12, decided by Jaipur Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.5.12, specific directions have been issued restraining the allotment of the land falling in catchment areas of water bodies 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 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

¶100

17. In Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. : 2011 ACR SCW 990, while declining to interfere with the order of the High Court, dismissing the writ petition preferred against the order of the Commissioner, setting aside the order of the Collector, whereby the directions were issued to the Gram Panchayat to transfer the land forming part of the pond to the occupants thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions to all the State Governments in the country in the following terms :

¶101

“ 22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthoized occupants of Gram Sabha /Gram Panchayat/

¶102

¶103

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶104

Poramboke/ Shmlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.”

¶105

18. In Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004, this Court vide order dated 12.1.17, has issued directions to the State Authorities to take effective steps for conservation and preservation of natural resources i.e. rivers, other water bodies and catchment area. Further, the State Authorities have been directed to undertake a drive to remove all encroachments made over the natural resources operating thereon and restore such natural resources by taking appropriate action.

¶106

19. In Kanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2019 (1) CJ (Civ.) (Raj.) 153, this Court while considering the issue regarding protection of the land forming part of catchment area in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955, observed: “16.Under the law if the tank, nadi or talab is required to be protected, then obviously, its boundary and catchment area are also required to be protected and thus, nothing turns on the question that according to the private respondents earlier in the revenue record the land alleged to have been regularised in their favour, comprising Khasra No.407 was shown in the revenue

¶107

¶108

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶109

record as ‘Talab Ki Pal’ and not ‘gair mumkin nadi’ as such. As a matter of fact in the order dated 31.7.85 passed by the Tehsildar, Aburoad, regualrising possession of father of the private respondents over the land measuring 755 sq. yard comprising Khasra No.529, it is specifically observed that land sought to be regularised forms part of ‘gair mumkin nadi’. (emphasis added)

¶110

20. Thus, in view of the position of law settled as above and directions already issued by this Court time and again, the land forming part of water bodies and catchment area thereof, cannot be permitted to be divested to any other use, all encroachments made on the said land deserve to be removed forthwith and the water bodies need to be protected and developed so as to subserve the larger public interest.

¶111

21. Moreover, as per mandate of provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the protection and development of all lakes in the State, except private properties situated in such lakes, with effect from the commencement of the Act, vest in the State Government and by virtue of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government is under an obligation to take steps either suo-moto or on the recommendation of the Authority to declare the boundaries of lake as defined under Section 2 (x) of the Act as may be considered necessary as protected area.

¶112

22. There are thousands of lakes and other water bodies in the State of Rajasthan. Jaisamand, Fatehsagar, Phichhola in District Udaipur, Rajsamand lake in District Rajsamand, Anna Sagar, Foy Sagar, Bisalsar, Gundolav and Pushkar in District Ajmer, Siliserh in District Alwar, Nakki Lake in Mount Abu (Sirohi), Balsamand, Kaylana, Ummed Sagar, Takhat Sagar, Phalodi in District Jodhpur, Gajner, Kolayat and Loonkaransar in District Bikaner, Gadisar, Kavod and Pokaran in District Jaisalmer, Kanak Sagar in District Bundi, Pithampuri and Rewasaa Kochchor in District Sikar, Gap Sagar Lake in District Dungarpur, Khalda (Didwana), Dugri & Gawane in District

¶113

¶114

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶115

Nagore, Talchhapar in District Churu, Sambhar Lake in District Jaipur, are some of the prominent lakes of the State of Rajasthan.

¶116

23. It is very unfortunate that even after lapse of more than six years, the Authority constituted has not taken any effective steps to carry out the survey and study of the lakes and prepare and maintain the record of the lakes including their boundaries, flow area and other matters necessary for protection and development of the lakes, which is one of the primary functions delineated under Section 6 of the Act entrusted to it.

¶117

24. It is argued before this Court that the matter with regard to the survey and the matter with regard to declaration of various lakes area as protected area could not be processed by the Authority inasmuch as the District Level Committees constituted under Section 9 of the Act by the State Government have failed to exercise the powers delegated to them. As a matter of fact, after constitution of the Committees as aforesaid, the Authority has not cared to regulate the functions of the Committees so as to ensure fulfillment of the objects sought to be achieved by enactment of the Act. On account of the delegation made, the Authority does not stand divested from the power vested in it and cannot shirk from its responsibility to carry out the functions entrusted to it by virtue of Section 6 of the Act.

¶118

25. We are at pain to notice that the State Government even declined to contribute its share under the DPR prepared for development of Gap Sagar Lake Dungarpur and Gundolav Talab of Kishangarh in the proportion specified under NPCA. The action of the State Government in denying the allocation of budget for development projects of the lakes, only reflects its apathetic attitude towards the laudable objects sought to be achieved by the State legislature by enacting the Act. To say the least, the State Government cannot be permitted to plead financial constraint in undertaking the lakes development

¶119

¶120

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶121

projects in various districts of the State frustrating the laudable objects underlying the provisions of the Act. It is for the State to manage its affairs and pursue the local authorities as well to contribute for the protection and development projects of the lakes.

¶122

26. In view of the discussion above, we issue following directions:

¶123

(i) The District Level Committees constituted under Section 9 of the Act shall carry out survey of the lakes in their respective district and prepare proposals for declaration of Lake boundaries and Protected area, prepare plans and projects and schemes for protection and development of lakes and submit it to the Authority with its recommendations. The proposals for declaring the Lake boundaries and Protected area shall be sent by the District Level Committees to the Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. The remaining exercise of preparing the plans, projects and schemes for protection and development of the lakes shall be forwarded to the Authority within a period of three months thereafter.

¶124

(ii) The Authority on receiving the proposal for declaration of boundaries of lake and protected area, shall after due consideration forward the same to the State Government to take appropriate steps within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the proposal. The State Government in its turn, shall issue the notification declaring the lake boundaries and protected area in terms of Section 4 of the Act within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶125

(iii) The development plans, projects and schemes of lakes submitted by the District Level Committee to the Authority with its recommendations shall also be considered by the Authority within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the plans and shall be forwarded to the State Government for necessary approval and financial sanction.

¶126

¶127

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶128

(iv) The State Government is directed to make separate allocation of the Budget for protection and development of the lakes of the State. The State Government shall consider the development plans submitted by the Authority and issue the approval and financial sanction expeditiously. The local authorities shall also make endeavour to share the expenditure to be incurred in development of the lakes falling within their local limits.

¶129

(v) The State Government is directed to release its share of the amount required for the projects of development of the lakes approved under NPCA Project of the Central Government.

¶130

(vi) The State Authorities and the Local Authorities are restrained from permitting any construction within 30 meters of perimeter of the lakes. No construction or possession over the land falling within 30 meters of the perimeter of the lakes shall be permitted to be regularised.

¶131

27. Keeping in view the fact that the lakes development projects are being undertaken by the Central Government under NPCA, we consider it appropriate and accordingly, direct to implead Union of India through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest as party respondent in suo-moto petition (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 752/2016). Let notice be issued to the newly added respondent, returnable within eight weeks.

¶132

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicator for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in W.P. No. 13609 of 2019 passed an order on 04.01.2020 as follows :

¶133

The Matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

¶134

Learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation has made categorical submission that there is

¶135

¶136

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶137

no reduction in the height of the embankment/pal and, in fact, only the encroachments are being removed and developmental project is being implemented to beautify the lake area to ensure that ambiance of the area is enhanced. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has further stated that they are ensuring that the complete encroachments in the area are removed and the water-body is protected by the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation also submits that the waterflow and catchment of the lake would not be affected by the action being proposed to be taken by the Corporation. The basic structure of the lake (water-body) as per his submissions shall remain undisturbed and well-maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation also assures that this lake being the Central Zone of the Jaisalmer city and a place of great public importance, the Municipal Corporation shall make every endeavour to develop the area in question and ensure that the water-body is protected and the encroachments are completely removed.

¶138

Counsel for the State submits that he needs to take further instructions regarding declaration of the lake under the Rajasthan Lakes (Protection and Development) Authority Act, 2015, which has come into force from 25th January, 2015. He prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file response.

¶139

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the overall interest of the citizens of the area is in preserving the lake, but without creating any impediment in the water-flow/catchment and also by beautification and development of the area. Learned counsel for the petitioner also supports the removal of all the encroachments in the lake area.

¶140

In light of the submissions, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is disposed of

¶141

¶142

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶143

and the order dated 16.09.2019 which required status quo to be maintained is modified in terms of the aforesaid observations and undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the Corporation, State and the petitioner as follows:

¶144

Thus, the following modified directions are being passed:

¶145

(a) The water-flow/catchment of the lake shall not be affected or impeded by any act of the Municipal Corporation.

¶146

(b) All encroachments in the lake vicinity shall be removed.

¶147

(c) The embankment/pal shall be protected and beautified as far as possible.

¶148

(d) The State shall give its definite stand regarding the declaration of the lake under the Act of 2015 by next date.

¶149

(e) The developmental project of the Municipal Corporation shall continue subject to the aforesaid observations. List on 2nd March, 2020.

¶150

Vide order dated 18.11.2024 just before two months the matter was taken up by the High Court of Judicator for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Civil WP No. 13609 of 2019 connected with Contempt No. 102 of 2020 and passed the order as follows:

¶151

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13609/2019:

¶152

This PIL was filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

¶153

“I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, resolution dated 17.06.19 (Annexure-6) internal page no 3 at paragraph No C of proposal no 4 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it damages and unsettle the foundations and original structure of Talab Ki Pal Khasra No 489 and 494.

¶154

II. By the appropriate writ, order or direction declare the work initiated pursuant to the resolution dated

¶155

¶156

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶157

17.06.19 (Annexure-6) internal page no 3 at paragraphs No C of proposal no 4 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶158

III. By any appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be perpetually restrained to remove sand and mud from Khasra No 489 and Khasra No 494 recorded as Gair Mumkin Pal or unsettle the foundations of the same in any manner that may lead to damage ‘Talab Ki Pal’ and restore the same to its original shape and size.

¶159

IV. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare Khasra No 488 Gadisar Lake/Pond as Lake within the relevant provisions of Rajasthan lake (Protection and Development) Authority Act, 2015.

¶160

V. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the Khasra No 489 and Khasra No 494 recorded as Gair Mumkin Pal as protected area as per the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Lake (Protection and Development) Authority Act, 2015.

¶161

VI. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to restore the damage caused to the foundations of Khasra No.489 recorded as Gair Mumkin Pal to the original shape and size as it was prior to the initiation of work by respondents.

¶162

VII. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any other order which the Hon’ble Court deems fit for protecting and preserving the historical importance and artistic value of the Gadisar Lake/Pond.”

¶163

During the pedency of the petition, the respondents have now come out with the notification dated 12.03.2021 by which, the Gadisar has been notified as lake under the provisions of

¶164

¶165

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶166

Rajasthan Lakesh (Protection & Development) Authority Act, 2015. By this notification, in addition to declaring the Gadisar area as lake, certain catchment areas as protected area has also been notified. By way of counter affidavit, the petitioner has placed on record certain material and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that though Gadisar has been declared as lake and certain area around it has also been declared as protected area, the entire area which was required to be declared as protected area has not been done.

¶167

After going through the relief clause and the issuance of the notification by the respondents, we are of the view that the purpose of filing this petition has been served. Once the notification has been issued, the legality and validity of that notification cannot be gone into in this petition and for that purpose, if so advised, the petitioner may file separate petition. This petition is accordingly disposed off as having rendered infructuous.

¶168

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 102/2020 :

¶169

The contempt petition was filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of status quo, which was passed by this Court in the pending D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13609/2019 alleging that encroachments are taking place despite the orders of the Court and no action is being taken.

¶170

Learned counsel for the State would submit that once there is a notification issued on 12.03.2021 declaring the Gadisar as lake are along with protected area, specified in the notification, no-one would be allowed to carry on any activity whatsoever and, if any, encroachment has taken place on the same, appropriate action would be initiated by the District Lake Protection Authority constituted under the Act of 2015.

¶171

In view of subsequent events and the statement, which has been made before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, the contempt petition is also disposed off. Notices are discharged.

¶172

¶173

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶174

However, it is made clear that encroachments, if any, made during the pendency of the petition, despite status quo order, have not been removed, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the contempt petition.

¶175

In compliance of the order, the State government issued a notification after giving an opportunity of hearing to all and inviting public opinion. The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 12.03.2021 and the removal of encroachment after 12.06.1961 but the same has taken cognizance by High Court and matter is in issue in the Hon’ble High Court noted in above petition and has been discussed vide order dated 18.11.2024.

¶176

Appropriate order has already been passed by Hon’ble the High Court directing the Municipal Corporation that the water flow /catchment of the lake shall not be affected or impeaded by any act of Municipal Corporation and that all encroachment in the lake vicinity shall be removed and the embakment shall be protected and beautify as possible.

¶177

The matter of cancellation or modification or quashing the notification dated 12.03.2021 is not within the domain of the Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act and further that any encroachment after 12.06.2021 and its removal is beyond the period as prescribed under section 14 and 15 of the NGT Act.

¶178

¶179

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

¶180

In W.P. No. 13609/2019 order dated 18.11.2024 the Hon’ble High Court has observed that once the notification have been issued, the legality and validity of that notification can not be gone through and for that purpose the petitioner may file separate petition. Secondly, on the point of encroachments the Hon’ble High Court has directed that the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the contempt petition in the matter of encroachment. Both the issues which have been raised by means of this petition/application have already been taken by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶181

Thus, at present the issues presented through this petition is not maintainable. The appropriate remedy for the applicant is to raise the matter before the Hon’ble High Court or to approach the appropriate forum.

¶182

The Original Application No. 277/2024 (CZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶183

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶184

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶185

10^th January, 2025 O. A No.277/2024(CZ) K

¶186

¶187

O. A No.277/2024(CZ) Sunil Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors.

Sunil Paliwal v. Local Self Government Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Paliwal v. Local Self Government Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathinasamy vs District Collector

Mr Tejas Chandrakant Yadav vs Ms Jn Marshall Co.

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged About 36 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar

News Item Titled "Chennai Citizen Connect Ambattur Residents Cry Foul as Sewage from Gated Community Pollutes Area" Appearing in Dtnext Dated 17.12.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Mp Supriya Sule Expressed Concern Over Medical Waste Dumping" Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 18.12.2024 vs

Sampat Baburao Mirghe vs Mr. Chandrakant Kundalmal Sancheti

Konduri Ramesh Babu vs Union of India

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 22/2024 in Original Application No. 135/2024 of Narendra Singh Bradwal vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department

News Item Titled ;Kodo Poisoning Behind Elephant Deaths in MpS Bandhavgarh All You Need to Know ; Appearing in CNBCTV18.COM vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest