Land rights cannot be granted over notified water bodies despite long-term possession, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court while upholding the removal of encroachments on Khandwa’s Shakkar Talab.

The petitioners, residents of Shakkar Talab Ward, Khandwa, challenged a Notice-cum-Order dated February 19, 2025, issued under Section 322 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which directed the removal of their alleged encroachments within three days.

The petitioners claimed continuous possession for over 40 years, assertions of residential/commercial usage, and pending applications for land titles (pattas) filed in 2018.

The respondents argued that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants on Government land forming part of "Shakkar Talab," a notified water body, and that their patta applications had been rejected.

During proceedings, the Corporation offered alternative housing under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) at a subsidized cost, which the petitioners declined citing financial incapacity, seeking instead leases under the 1984 Adhiniyam.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of a patta or lease over the disputed land situated on a notified water body.

2. Whether the alternative rehabilitation offer by the Municipal Corporation was fair and reasonable under the existing legal framework.

Section 322 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, governing the removal of encroachments.

Section 3 of the M.P. Nagriya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984, which provides for the settlement of land or allotment of alternative sites to landless persons.

The Court further adhered to the environmental principles established in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, which mandate the protection of water bodies and prohibit their regularization for private use.

The "Public Trust Doctrine" and Article 48-A of the Constitution were invoked to justify the preservation of the water body.

The Court observed that while the petitioners sought settlement of the land they occupied, the disputed area was officially recorded as "Talab land" (a water body).

Consequently, applying the precedents of the Supreme Court, it held that no patta could legally be granted over such public resources regardless of the length of possession.

Regarding rehabilitation, the Court analyzed the respondents' offer under the IHSDP scheme. It noted that while the 1984 Adhiniyam contemplates the grant of leasehold rights to landless persons, the Government's offer of a permanent residential house at a subsidized cost of ₹1,75,000 (with interest-free instalments over 15 years) was a superior and "beneficial alternative" to a mere plot of land, as it saved the beneficiaries from construction costs.

The Court found the petitioners' rejection of this subsidized housing, despite their status as unauthorized occupants on protected land, as a lack of merit in their claim for specific types of leasehold rights.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merit, and declined to grant any relief against the demolition or for the specific grant of land leases. No order as to costs was made.