Public Purpose Like Road, Crematorium Cannot Be Achieved At Cost Of Destroying Natural Water Channels: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the use of a 'Gair Mumkin Nala' (natural drainage and water flow channel) cannot be altered for any non-conforming purposes, like construction of road or a crematorium, merely on the ground that the utilisation was for a public purpose.

While directing the State to remove any road, crematorium structure, or encroachments from the concerned land, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the State had failed to discharge its statutory and constitutional obligations towards preservation of natural water channels.

“…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…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.”

For context, the Court was hearing a PIL that challenged the act of the concerned government department of putting a “Gair Mumkin Nala” for purposes other than its recorded nature, like constructing a road and permitting land utilisation for crematorium purposes.

It was argued that the Gair Mumkin Nala, being a natural water channel, could not have been put to any other use than what was legally permissible. It was argued that the act of the State was contrary to the law and violative of the constitutional mandate relating to environmental protecting and preservation of natural resources.

On the contrary, the counsel for the State argued that road and crematorium were developed for public utility purposes and hence, no interference of the Court was needed in the matter.

After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the argument by the State and opined that the concerned land being a natural drainage and water flow channel, was an integral part of the ecological framework and hydrological system of the area. Such lands could not be used for any non-conforming purposes merely owing to any public purpose.

While underscoring the right to clean and sustainable environment under Article 21, and the duties under Articles 48-A and 51-A of the Constitution, the Court stated that the doctrine of public trust obligated the State to act as a trustee of natural resources and mandated preservation for the benefit of the general public and future generations.

“…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.”

The Court further observed that public utility could not be achieved at the cost of destruction of natural resources which the State was constitutionally and legally bound to preserve. It was held that administrative convenience or developmental pressure could not legitimise an action which was otherwise impermissible in law.

“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.”

Accordingly, the PIL was allowed, and the State was directed to remove any construction or encroachments on the concerned land and restore it to its original recorded nature.

Title: Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

Click Here To Read/Download Order