SHRI NITIN JAIN vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(2 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
REPORTABLE
10/04/2026
1. The present Public Interest Litigation concerns allegations of
illegal construction, excavation, encroachment, and environmental
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(3 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
damage caused by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, namely Brahma
Kumaris Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as “the Sansthan”),
within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Mount Abu. The area falls
within and around the Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary, which is an
ecologically sensitive region protected under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and related notifications. The grievance of
the petitioners is that despite repeated complaints, the concerned
authorities have failed to prevent such unlawful activities.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Sansthan has carried out construction and expansion over
reserved forest land comprising Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 in
Reserved Forest Block Abu No. 1, as well as Khasra Nos. 47, 106
and 109 of Village Danvav and Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 of Village
Umarni, without obtaining the required permissions under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
3. It is contended that such continued construction within the
notified ESZ threatens the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu. The
petitioners further submit that Respondent government
authorities, have failed to take proper action and enforce
environmental laws.
4. Therefore, the petitioners seek directions from this Court for
removal of all illegal encroachments, restoration of the forest land
and ecological balance of the area, and recovery of the cost of
such restoration from the encroaching entities responsible for the
damage.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1,
3 to 6, i.e., the Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan,
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(4 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
submitted that Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 form part of notified
forest land. However, it is clarified that at present no construction,
possession, or encroachment of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 exists
over the said Khasra numbers. It is submitted that certain
encroachments which had earlier been raised were identified, the
structures were sealed, and minor constructions were demolished.
The land along with the existing structures has already been
surrendered to the Forest Department. It is further submitted that
Khasra Nos. 47, 106, 109, 200 and 201 are recorded as revenue
land and do not form part of forest land.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Department,
Respondent No.2, submitted that Khasra Nos. 47, 106, and 109
are duly recorded as revenue/khatedari land, and the necessary
conversion and permissions for construction were granted by the
competent authority, including the Gram Panchayat, prior to
issuance of the new Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification dated
11.11.2020. It is stated that after declaration of the ESZ, no
further permissions have been granted. So far as Khasra Nos. 200
and 201 are concerned, it is submitted that proceedings relating
to demarcation and encroachment are underway, and
unauthorized occupation shall be removed strictly in accordance
with law. With regard to “Anand Sarovar,” it is clarified that no
talab, pond, or sarovar is recorded in the revenue records at the
said location, and the same is merely the name of the campus
established by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 11 and 12,
i.e., Brahma Kumaris Institution, submitted that the allegations
made in the writ petition are baseless, misleading, and motivated.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(5 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
It is submitted that the construction alleged over Khasra Nos. 412,
416 and 419 had occurred due to an incorrect demarcation, and
upon clarification, the said land along with the structures has
already been surrendered to the Forest Department. The said
structures have been sealed and are no longer under the
possession or use of the answering respondents.
8. It is further submitted that so far as the revenue lands are
concerned, all constructions have been raised only after obtaining
due permissions from the competent authorities and prior to
issuance of the ESZ Notification dated 11.11.2020. It is specifically
contended that Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 do not belong to the
answering respondents. It is also submitted that the institution is
a non-profit spiritual organization engaged in meditation, yoga,
and spiritual activities, and no commercial activity is being carried
out on the premises. It is state that “Anand Sarovar,” is only the
name of the area on the premises developed and is not a lake,
pond, or forest water body on site or in the revenue record.
Therefore, the allegation of encroachment over a pond or lake is
stated to be entirely false and without any factual basis.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that Petitioner No. 3,
namely Jayantilal Upadhyay, is closely related to one Kantilal
Upadhyay, who is stated to be a habitual litigant. It is pointed out
that several litigations filed by the said person have previously
been dismissed by Coordinate Benches of this Court with adverse
observations, including imposition of costs, on the ground that
such petitions were not bona fide and were filed with ulterior
motives.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(6 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
10. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is not a
genuine public interest litigation concerning environmental
protection, but is a motivated petition filed solely with the
intention to harass the answering respondents by relying upon
incorrect and incomplete facts. The respondents thus pray for
dismissal of the present PIL.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the material available on record.
12. Upon consideration of the replies filed by the Forest
Department, Revenue Department, and Respondent Nos. 11 and
12, it emerges that Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 admittedly
form part of forest land. However, the material on record reveals
that the constructions raised thereon have already been
surrendered to the Forest Department. The structures have been
sealed and minor constructions have also been demolished. At
present, no continuing possession or active encroachment of
Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 over the said forest land is shown to
exist.
13. So far as Khasra Nos. 47, 106 and 109 are concerned, the
Revenue Department has specifically clarified that the said lands
are recorded as revenue/khatedari lands and the constructions
thereon were raised after due conversion and permission granted
by the competent authority, including the Gram Panchayat, prior
to issuance of the ESZ Notification dated 11.11.2020. It has also
been stated that after declaration of the ESZ, no fresh permissions
have been granted.
14. With regard to “Anand Sarovar,” the State authorities have
clarified that no pond, talab, or sarovar is recorded in the revenue
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(7 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
records at the site and that the same is merely the name of the
campus established by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12. Therefore, the
allegation of encroachment over a water body is not borne out
from the record.
15. As regards Khasra Nos. 200 and 201, proceedings
concerning demarcation and encroachment are stated to be
pending and the authorities have undertaken to remove any illegal
occupation found therein in accordance with law.
16. In view of the above discussion and upon careful
consideration of the pleadings, replies, and material placed on
record, this Court finds that the principal allegations regarding
large-scale illegal encroachment over forest land and unauthorized
construction over revenue land by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 do
not survive in the manner projected by the petitioners.
17. Thus, while this Court is not inclined to accept the allegations
of continuing illegal encroachment in the broad manner projected
by the petitioners, the proceedings have nevertheless brought to
light the necessity of vigilant enforcement of environmental laws
in the Mount Abu region. The Court is of the considered view that
though the specific grievances raised in the present petition may
substantially stand addressed, the larger issue concerning
protection of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, prevention of unauthorized
development, and preservation of the fragile ecological balance of
Mount Abu continues to remain a matter of serious public
importance requiring constant institutional attention.
18. It is noteworthy that Mount Abu, being the only hill station in
the State of Rajasthan, occupies a unique ecological and
environmental position and has repeatedly been the subject
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(8 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
matter of judicial scrutiny in matters concerning environmental
degradation, illegal encroachments, soil erosion, depletion of
forest cover and unregulated developmental activities. The region
is ecologically fragile and environmentally sensitive, containing
rare species of flora and fauna, significant geological formations,
natural water recharge zones, forest ecosystems, and heritage
structures of both natural and cultural importance.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
environmental concerns relating specifically to Mount Abu in
Pragnesh Shah v. Arun Kumar Sharma , reported in 2022
Supreme (SC) 762 emphasized the necessity of strict
environmental regulation and sustainable developmental planning
in the region. The Apex Court recognized that the purpose of
declaring Mount Abu as an Eco-Sensitive Zone was to prevent
irreversible environmental degradation and to ensure that future
development occurs only in consonance with ecological
preservation. The Court particularly highlighted the significance of
the Zonal Master Plan and observed that environmental
governance in Mount Abu must be guided by the precautionary
principle and the doctrine of sustainable development.
20. The Supreme Court observed as under :-
“Mount Abu was identified as an ESZ under the ESZ
Notification because environmental degradation of its
fragile ecosystem was a real possibility if immediate action
was not taken. Significant soil erosion, air and water
pollution had already occurred due to developmental
activities. The ecological importance of Mount Abu lies in
its rare flora and fauna, natural heritage such as Nakki
Lake, and heritage structures such as Dilwara Temples.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(9 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
The ESZ Notification required preparation of the Zonal
Master Plan 2030 to ensure that future developmental
activity is planned while accounting for environmental
degradation, following the precautionary principle. The
Notification is an enforceable charter for preservation of
the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu, and every authority is
duty bound to comply with it.”
21. Mount Abu area was initially notified as an Eco-Sensitive
Zone by the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide Notification
dated 25.06.2009. Thereafter, the Government of India, vide
Notification dated 11.11.2020, issued a fresh notification
specifically declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone around Mount Abu
Wildlife Sanctuary and prescribing regulatory as well as prohibited
activities within the said zone. The object of such notification is to
create a protective buffer around the Wildlife Sanctuary so as to
minimize negative environmental impacts caused by
developmental and commercial activities and to preserve the
fragile ecological balance of the area.
22. Pursuant to the said notifications, the Zonal Master Plan
2030 has been prepared and is presently in force. The Zonal
Master Plan serves as the principal planning instrument for
regulating land use, construction activity, environmental
safeguards, waste management, tourism control, and ecological
conservation within the notified zone. Once such statutory
planning framework is in force, it becomes the bounden duty of
the State Government, local authorities, forest department,
revenue authorities, urban development authorities, and all other
concerned agencies to ensure strict compliance thereof.
23. This Court reiterates that no construction, or change in land
or any action contrary to the provisions of the ESZ Notifications
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(10 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
and the Zonal Master Plan can be permitted under any
circumstance. Environmental protection cannot be sacrificed in the
name of development, and any person found violating the
statutory scheme must be dealt with promptly and strictly in
accordance with law.
24. This Court is of the considered opinion that although the
present allegations may not warrant further coercive action in
view of the observations made above, the necessity for continuous
monitoring of the Eco-Sensitive Zone is of paramount importance.
Environmental governance, particularly in an ecologically fragile
region such as Mount Abu, cannot depend merely upon sporadic
litigation initiated by private individuals, it requires sustained
institutional vigilance and coordinated administrative action.
25. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a
Vigilance Committee has already been constituted by the
Government for monitoring compliance within the Eco-Sensitive
Zone. The said Committee must function effectively and not
merely exist on paper. The Committee shall regularly monitor
complaints relating to illegal construction, unauthorized land use,
encroachments upon forest land, tree cutting, hill cutting, waste
disposal violations, pollution of water bodies, and any other
activity adversely affecting the ecology of Mount Abu.
26. The concerned departments, including the Forest
Department, Revenue Department, Municipal Authorities, Pollution
Control Authorities, and local administrative bodies, shall maintain
close coordination with the Vigilance Committee and shall ensure
prompt verification of complaints received. If any violation is
found, immediate remedial and coercive steps shall be taken
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(11 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
strictly in accordance with law, including sealing, demolition,
restoration of ESZ, prosecution, imposition of environmental
compensation, and initiation of other statutory proceedings
wherever required. Mere issuance of notices without effective
enforcement shall not satisfy the mandate of law.
27. The authorities are further directed to maintain transparency
in the process by preserving proper records of complaints
received, inspections conducted, action taken reports, and status
of pending proceedings so that environmental compliance is not
reduced to a mere formality.
28. It is also necessary to emphasize that preservation of the
environment is not merely a statutory obligation of the State but a
constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g)
of the Constitution of India. The right to live in a clean, pollution-
free, and ecologically balanced environment forms an integral part
of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Simultaneously,
Article 48A casts a duty upon the State to protect and improve the
environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty
upon every citizen to safeguard natural resources and ecological
heritage.
29. Keeping these constitutional principles in view, this Court
directs that strict compliance of the Plastic Waste Management
Rules, 2016 and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 shall be
ensured throughout the Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone. Illegal
dumping of solid waste, plastic pollution, discharge of untreated
waste into forest areas or water bodies, and unregulated tourism-
related waste generation are serious threats to the ecological
sustainability of Mount Abu and must be dealt with firmly.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)

(12 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] [CW-4523/2026]
30. The State authorities shall undertake effective waste
management measures including proper collection, segregation,
transportation, recycling, and scientific disposal of municipal and
plastic waste. Special attention shall be given to tourist zones,
forest fringes, water bodies, hill slopes, and ecologically sensitive
pockets where waste accumulation causes long-term
environmental damage. Public awareness measures shall also be
undertaken to ensure active citizen participation in preserving the
natural environment.
31. The object of these directions is not merely regulatory
compliance, but the preservation of Mount Abu as a unique
ecological heritage for present and future generations. The fragile
ecosystem of the region must be protected with seriousness,
consistency, and a sense of constitutional responsibility.
32. In view of the foregoing discussion and the directions issued
hereinabove, the present Public Interest Litigation stands disposed
of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 01:19:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)