Strict compliance with Zonal Master Plan and Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications is mandatory for preserving Mount Abu’s fragile ecosystem.

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 (Brahma Kumaris Sansthan) engaged in illegal construction, excavation, and encroachment on reserved forest land and revenue land within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Mount Abu.

Specifically, petitioners claimed violations on Khasra Nos. 412, 416, and 419 (forest land) and various other Khasra numbers across Village Danvav and Umarni.

The Forest Department countered that while minor encroachments previously existed on forest land, the structures had been sealed or demolished and the land surrendered.

The Revenue Department clarified that constructions on revenue land were permitted prior to the 2020 ESZ notification.

Respondents further challenged the bona fides of the petitioners, alleging a personal vendetta.

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notifications (dated 25.06.2009 and 11.11.2020), which mandate the creation of a protective buffer and the enforcement of the Zonal Master Plan 2030.

Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, establishing the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right and the protection of the environment as a duty of both State and citizens.

Pragnesh Shah v. Arun Kumar Sharma (2022 SC 762), which reinforced the Precautionary Principle and the Doctrine of Sustainable Development specifically concerning Mount Abu.

The court found that the specific allegations of ongoing encroachment did not survive scrutiny because the forest land in question (Khasra Nos. 412, 416, and 419) had already been surrendered to and sealed by the Forest Department.

Regarding revenue land, the court accepted the state's evidence that permissions were granted prior to the 2020 notification and that "Anand Sarovar" was a campus name rather than an encroached water body.

the court emphasized that because Mount Abu is the state's only hill station and is ecologically fragile, environmental governance cannot be "sporadic" or dependent on private litigation.

The court reasoned that since the ESZ Notification is an "enforceable charter," the state has a continuous duty to ensure that no activity—commercial or construction-based—violates the Zonal Master Plan.

The Court directed: (i) strict enforcement of the Zonal Master Plan 2030 and ESZ Notifications; (ii) the government-appointed Vigilance Committee must actively monitor and verification complaints regarding tree cutting, hill cutting, and illegal construction; and (iii) the State must ensure strict compliance with Plastic and Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, to prevent ecological damage from tourism.