Rajasthan High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Encroachments Affecting Nevta Dam Catchment

Background of the Proceedings

The matter came before the Rajasthan High Court in the suit styled Govindram v State of Rajasthan. The petition highlighted that unauthorised pakka boundary walls had been erected on agricultural lands situated within the nalas (stream beds) and catchment zones of Khatwada village, as well as adjoining areas of Ramgarh and Kukas. These constructions were alleged to obstruct the natural drainage of rainwater, thereby reducing the inflow to Nevta Dam, particularly during the monsoon season. The petitioners contended that such impediments violated the duty to preserve water resources and constituted a public nuisance.

Observations of the Division Bench

The division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma, took serious note of the factual matrix presented. The Court observed that the erection of pakka walls for land demarcation, while intended to prevent disputes among agriculturists, had the unintended consequence of arresting the flow of water toward the dam. It emphasized that the responsibility to keep catchment areas free from obstruction rests with every citizen, not merely with the state. The Bench further noted that demarcation of agricultural holdings could be achieved through alternative means such as temporary markers, fencing of non‑impermeable material, or survey‑based delineation, thereby obviating the need for solid walls that impede water movement.

The Court quoted its own observation: “We noticed that people buy agricultural lands and construct pakka boundary walls resulting in stopping the flow of water to the nearby water bodies during the rainy season. While demarcation of agricultural lands is necessary to avoid any friction in the society and among the agriculturists, at the same time, it is the responsibility of each citizen to see that the catchment area to the nearby water bodies, should not be stopped by constructing pakka boundary walls. So far as demarcation is concerned, the same can always be done by other methods also. Even if a boundary wall is to be constructed for certain reasons then too there should be adequate way at the lower side of the boundary wall so that water may continue to flow ahead.”

Directions Issued by the Court

In light of these findings, the Bench issued a series of operative directions:

1. The state authorities, including the revenue and public works departments, are to undertake the immediate removal of all encroachments and pakka constructions situated over the nalas and catchment areas of Khatwada, Ramgarh and Kukas villages.
2. Prior to demolition, the concerned land‑owners must be afforded an opportunity to voluntarily open the obstructed sections to restore the natural water flow.
3. The notices already issued by the state shall be published in local newspapers, providing land‑owners a clear chance to comply voluntarily.
4. The Tehsildar of the concerned jurisdiction is directed to serve individual notices on the affected land‑owners, specifying the required actions and the timeline for compliance.
5. All steps taken for removal shall commence forthwith, keeping in view the imminent monsoon, and shall not be halted or delayed without prior permission of this Court.
6. Civil courts and revenue courts are restrained from entertaining any civil suits, pleas or applications relating to the demarcation or removal of structures within the said catchment areas until further order.

Legal Rationale and Implications

The Court’s reasoning rests on the principle that water bodies and their catchment zones constitute a public trust, and any private act that diminishes their capacity to collect and channel rainwater is liable to be curtailed. By linking the duty of demarcation with the obligation to preserve water flow, the Bench extended the ambit of environmental stewardship to individual land‑owners. The prohibition on civil and revenue courts from entertaining related suits serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensures that the executive’s compliance mechanism remains unimpeded.

The directive to publish notices in newspapers and to involve the Tehsildar reflects a procedural safeguard aimed at affording affected parties a reasonable hearing before enforcement, thereby aligning the order with the principles of natural justice.

Compliance Timeline

The matter has been posted for further hearing on 5 August 2026, at which time the state is required to file a compliance report detailing the steps taken to remove the encroachments and restore the natural flow to Nevta Dam. Until then, the operative directions remain in force, and any deviation will be subject to the Court’s contempt jurisdiction.