Partial earthen-bund removal was upheld, subject to strict technical compliance and preservation of the pond.

Residents of Village Nagalpur, Taluka and District Botad, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the State’s decision to remove a portion of an earthen bund forming part of a pond/percolation tank existing since approximately 1970.

The petitioners contended that the pond, spread over private agricultural lands, supported rainwater harvesting, groundwater recharge, soil fertility and irrigation for farmers in Nagalpur and adjoining villages.

The pond had also been integrated with the SAUNI Yojana to receive diverted Narmada water.

Farmers of neighbouring Village Dhankaniya had complained that the pond’s water level caused submergence of agricultural lands and farm approach roads.

After considering various representations and alternatives, the Executive Engineer proposed breaching approximately 30 metres of the bund near the original gorge portion, together with protective works along downstream agricultural fields, at an estimated cost of Rs. 3 lakhs.

The proposal was approved in principle by the competent authorities on 23 February 2026, following which a tender was issued and a work order was granted.

The petitioners challenged the decision on the ground that removal of the bund would destroy or dry the pond and cause flooding and other adverse consequences for Nagalpur.

Whether the State’s decision to remove a portion of the earthen bund of the Nagalpur percolation tank was arbitrary, inadequately considered, or liable to be set aside in a Public Interest Litigation.

Whether the proposed work would result in destruction or drying of the pond and consequent harm to the petitioners and adjoining agricultural lands.

Whether safeguards and directions were necessary to ensure that the work was confined to the approved portion of the bund and that downstream agricultural fields were protected from flooding and soil erosion.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of administrative and technical decisions, particularly that a decision supported by a competent technical assessment and undertaken after consideration of relevant alternatives will not ordinarily be interfered with merely because another view is possible.

The Court also applied public-law principles requiring the State, while executing a public project affecting competing groups, to consider the consequences for all affected stakeholders and to incorporate reasonable safeguards against environmental, agricultural and public harm.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court examined the technical report, the affidavits of the Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer, the history of representations by Dhankaniya farmers, and the alternatives considered by the authorities.

It found that the decision was not based on an intention to destroy the entire pond but on a site-specific technical assessment that breaching approximately 30 metres of the bund at the gorge portion was the only viable method of releasing water from submerged lands and farm roads.

The authorities had also proposed protective works along both sides of the downstream fields to mitigate soil erosion and flooding.

Since the decision was supported by technical material, had received competent approval, and addressed a longstanding conflict between the two villages, the Court found no sufficient basis to invalidate it.

Nevertheless, because the project could affect the pond and adjoining fields, the Court imposed strict operational safeguards regarding the extent and manner of execution.

The Executive Engineer was directed to ensure that the work was executed strictly in accordance with the approved project report, with removal of approximately 30 metres of bund at the specified location and no damage to other parts of the bund or adjoining fields.

The work was to be completed in a time-bound manner with minimal damage, and protective works were to be undertaken to safeguard downstream agricultural fields from flooding and soil erosion.

The pond was also required to be maintained as a water body for rainwater harvesting and not allowed to dry out as a consequence of the project; affected villagers were permitted to raise subsequent grievances before the Executive Engineer and the District Collector.

The writ petition and connected Civil Application were disposed of with these observations and directions.