Prohibition on Diversion of Natural Water Channels (Gair Mumkin Nala) Regardless of Public Utility Purposes

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to remove a gravel road and crematorium structures constructed on land bearing Khasra No. 717/444 in Village Khatwa, Tehsil Lalsot

The land, measuring 2.03 bigha, is officially recorded in the revenue entries and Jamabandi as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ (a natural water channel)

The State respondents admitted in their reply that the land is recorded as a Nala and that a road and crematorium canopies had been developed there for "public utility purposes"

1. Whether the State can legally permit the construction of a road or crematorium on land recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ (natural water channel)

2. Whether “public utility” justifications override the State’s constitutional obligation to preserve natural water bodies and catchment areas

The Court primarily applied the Doctrine of Public Trust, which mandates that the State act as a trustee of natural resources like water bodies for the benefit of the general public

It relied on Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, which impose fundamental duties on the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment

The Court emphasized that the right to a clean environment is a facet of Article 21 (Right to Life)

Key precedents included Abdul Rehman v. State of Rajasthan, requiring the protection of catchment areas

and Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, which prohibits the disturbance of natural resources like Nalas and river beds during development

The Court reasoned that a ‘Gair Mumkin Nala’ is an integral part of the hydrological system; any obstruction affects drainage, groundwater recharge, and ecological equilibrium

Since the State admitted the land’s character as a natural water channel, the legal consequences were "self-evident"—such land cannot be diverted for non-conforming purposes

The Court rejected the State's defense of "public utility," clarifying that administrative convenience or developmental pressures cannot legitimise actions that are destructive to ecological balance or contrary to the law of the land

The Court noted that despite existing judicial mandates (e.g., Abdul Rehman), the authorities failed to discharge their statutory obligations

The court directed the respondents to: (i) remove the road, crematorium structures, and any other encroachments on Khasra No. 717/444 forthwith; (ii) restore the land to its original recorded nature as a Nala; and (iii) ensure no further inconsistent use of this or adjoining Nala lands

Compliance was ordered within three months