Introduction:
The Rajasthan High Court, while continuing its consideration of a batch of petitions concerning the protection and preservation of rivers, lakes and other water bodies in the State, has issued significant directions for identifying and removing encroachments from the catchment areas of water channels flowing towards the Ramgarh Dam. The Court has also recognised the role of the media and journalists in bringing instances of encroachment to the notice of the administration, describing them as the “eyes and ears of the public”.
The proceedings arise in Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan and connected petitions, where the High Court has been monitoring issues concerning the protection of water bodies and their catchment areas. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma examined an affidavit submitted by the District Collector, Jaipur, containing details of encroachments identified in areas through which rivers and small drains carry water towards the Ramgarh Dam.
The affidavit revealed the existence of a substantial number of alleged encroachments in the catchment and flow areas. The Court particularly took note of encroachments situated in five tehsils, namely Andhi, Jamwa Ramgarh, Amer, Shahpura and Viratnagar. The scale of the alleged encroachment was such that the authorities would be required to undertake a substantial exercise to identify the occupants, provide them the statutorily required opportunity and thereafter remove the encroachments in accordance with law.
The Court described the persons occupying the concerned government land as trespassers and emphasised the need for the State authorities to proceed against such encroachments.
The issue is particularly important in the context of environmental and public resources law because rivers, drains, lakes and catchment areas are not merely parcels of land capable of being treated as ordinary government property. Their natural flow and carrying capacity are integral to the functioning of water systems. Encroachment upon drainage channels and catchment areas can obstruct the movement of water, alter natural drainage patterns and increase the vulnerability of surrounding areas to waterlogging and flooding.
The Ramgarh Dam itself has considerable significance for Jaipur and its surrounding region. Protection of the water channels feeding the dam therefore requires not merely preservation of the reservoir but also protection of the catchment and feeder areas through which water reaches it.
The High Court’s intervention demonstrates the continuing nature of judicial monitoring in matters involving environmental protection and public land. Rather than treating the issue as an isolated dispute between individual occupants and the administration, the Court has approached the matter from the perspective of protecting the larger public resource.
At the same time, the Court recognised that removal of a large number of encroachments must comply with statutory requirements concerning notice and opportunity of hearing. The authorities could not simply remove every occupant without following the applicable procedure.
The difficulty before the Court was practical as well as legal. Since the number of encroachers was stated to be very large, serving individual notices to every person could consume considerable time. The Court therefore devised a mechanism intended to satisfy the requirement of informing the affected persons while allowing the State to proceed with the removal process without unnecessary delay.
The Court directed that the list of encroachments be published in two newspapers, Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika, which were identified as having wide circulation in the State.
The publication was intended to serve as public notice and provide the affected persons the prescribed 15-day period to remove the encroachments and respond to the proceedings.
The Court explained that such publication would prevent encroachers from subsequently claiming that they had not been informed about the proceedings or had not been provided an opportunity to comply with the directions.
The order thus seeks to balance two competing considerations. On one hand, individuals affected by administrative action must receive procedural fairness. On the other, the State cannot be permitted to allow large-scale encroachments on public land and environmentally significant areas to continue indefinitely merely because serving individual notices may take considerable time.
The Court has therefore adopted a collective notice mechanism while retaining the statutory requirement of giving the affected persons an opportunity before coercive action is taken.
The proceedings also recognise that enforcement cannot depend exclusively upon the administrative machinery. The Court has invited assistance from the wider public and specifically acknowledged the role of journalists and media organisations in identifying and reporting instances of encroachment.
This aspect of the order reflects the principle that environmental protection is a matter involving the community as a whole. Members of the public who observe illegal occupation of water channels, catchment areas or government land can bring such information to the attention of the authorities.
The Court has accordingly stated that journalists and the media, being the “eyes and ears of the public”, also have a role to play in ensuring that further encroachments do not occur.
Arguments of the Parties:
The proceedings are being considered by the Rajasthan High Court in the context of a wider judicial examination of the protection of rivers, lakes and water bodies. The State authorities have been required to identify existing encroachments and place relevant information before the Court.
The affidavit filed by the District Collector, Jaipur, was particularly significant in the present hearing. It contained a list of encroachments identified in the catchment areas of rivers and small drains that form part of the natural flow of water towards the Ramgarh Dam.
The material before the Court indicated that the problem was widespread. Encroachments had been identified in five tehsils, namely Andhi, Jamwa Ramgarh, Amer, Shahpura and Viratnagar.
From the State’s perspective, the existence of such a large number of encroachments presented a significant administrative challenge. The authorities were required to identify the occupants, comply with statutory requirements and thereafter take steps for removal.
The State would also be required to ensure that its action remained legally sustainable, particularly because removal of an encroachment affects possession and may result in the demolition or removal of structures raised upon the land.
The Court’s directions therefore acknowledge that although the State has the authority and responsibility to protect government land and water channels, the exercise of that authority must still conform to the law.
The requirement of providing 15 days’ notice was central to this process.
The Court recognised the practical difficulty of issuing individual notices to a very large number of alleged encroachers. At the same time, it did not dispense with the requirement of notice altogether. Instead, the Court directed publication of the list in two widely circulated newspapers.
This mechanism effectively places the responsibility upon the affected occupants to take notice of the proceedings through the publication and comply with the statutory requirements.
The respondents’ position was therefore also facilitated by the Court’s approach: the authorities would receive a workable mechanism for notifying a large group of persons without being required to locate and individually serve every alleged encroacher before commencing the statutory process.
The State was also given the ability to take stronger measures in cases where encroachments were not removed after notice.
The Court made it clear that if the encroachments continued despite the newspaper publication, the State and its functionaries would be entitled, and indeed required, to proceed with their removal.
The financial consequence of such enforcement was also expressly addressed. The Court directed that the expenditure incurred by the State in removing an encroachment would have to be borne by the concerned encroacher.
This direction reflects the principle that the public exchequer should not necessarily be burdened with the cost of rectifying an unlawful occupation of government land. If an individual continues to occupy public land despite being notified and given an opportunity to remove the encroachment voluntarily, the resulting enforcement expenditure may legitimately be recovered from that person.
The Court also contemplated situations in which enforcement might face resistance.
It observed that where encroachments were rampant or there was opposition to their removal, the State would be free to seek appropriate police assistance or register criminal cases.
This part of the order demonstrates that the Court expects the administration to actively enforce its directions rather than merely identify encroachments and prepare reports.
The emphasis on enforcement is particularly relevant because environmental and public-land directions can become ineffective if administrative authorities fail to act after identifying violations.
The Court also established a channel through which information about fresh or previously unidentified encroachments could reach the administration. It directed that if information concerning encroachment was received by the District Collector, the Collector should verify it and take appropriate action.
The petitioners’ broader position in the connected proceedings can be understood in the context of the need to preserve water bodies and ensure that government authorities fulfil their statutory and constitutional obligations concerning environmental protection.
Although the present hearing was focused primarily on the affidavit and implementation mechanism, the larger proceedings concern the protection of natural water resources from encroachment and degradation.
Water bodies and their catchment areas serve an important ecological and public function. Their protection cannot depend exclusively on individual complaints. Where encroachments are widespread, an effective institutional mechanism is necessary for identification, verification and removal.
The Court’s recognition of the media’s role is therefore significant.
The media is not being assigned an enforcement function. Rather, journalists and members of the public are being encouraged to bring information about encroachments to the attention of the Collector, who remains responsible for verification and appropriate administrative action.
This distinction is important because the final determination of whether a particular occupation constitutes an illegal encroachment remains with the competent authority and must be made according to law.
The Court has not authorised private individuals or journalists to directly remove structures or take coercive action. Instead, it has created an additional avenue through which information can reach the State administration.
The respondents therefore remain responsible for verifying complaints and taking action.
The Court’s directions also reflect a concern that the sheer scale of the problem should not become a justification for inaction.
Where thousands or a large number of encroachments exist, an administration may face practical difficulties in dealing with each case individually. But those difficulties cannot justify allowing encroachment upon environmentally important public land to continue indefinitely.
The judicial approach seeks to convert the information contained in the Collector’s affidavit into an actionable enforcement process.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma took a firm approach towards the protection of the catchment areas feeding the Ramgarh Dam.
After examining the affidavit submitted by the District Collector, Jaipur, the Court noted the large number of encroachments identified in the relevant areas.
The Court specifically referred to five tehsils—Andhi, Jamwa Ramgarh, Amer, Shahpura and Viratnagar—where significant encroachments were stated to exist.
The Court characterised the occupants of the concerned government land as trespassers and directed that the authorities proceed in accordance with law for removal of the encroachments.
However, the Court was conscious that even an alleged encroacher cannot simply be removed without compliance with the applicable statutory requirements.
The Court therefore addressed the question of notice.
Ordinarily, where individual occupants are sought to be removed, individual notice would provide the clearest means of informing them of the proceedings. But the Court noted that the number of encroachments was so large that issuing individual notices could take a considerable amount of time.
Rather than allowing this logistical difficulty to stall the entire process, the Court directed publication of the list of encroachments in Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika, identified as newspapers having the widest publication in the State.
The publication was directed to fulfil the requirement of notifying the affected persons and giving them 15 days to respond or remove the encroachment.
The Court’s reasoning was directed at preventing a familiar objection in subsequent litigation: an encroacher should not later contend that he or she was unaware of the proceedings or was denied an opportunity of being heard when adequate public notice had been issued.
The newspaper publication therefore serves both an administrative and procedural purpose.
It enables the State to proceed efficiently while preserving an opportunity for affected persons to take notice of the action proposed against them.
The Court then laid down the consequence of non-compliance.
If, despite the newspaper notice, the encroachments were not removed, the State and its officials were directed to proceed with their removal.
The Court further directed that the expenditure incurred by the State in carrying out the removal would have to be borne by the concerned encroachers.
The direction places the financial burden of enforcement upon those who continue to occupy public land after receiving notice, rather than automatically passing the cost on to the public exchequer.
The Court also anticipated resistance to the enforcement process. Where encroachments were widespread or opposition was encountered, the State was permitted to take appropriate police assistance and, where warranted, register criminal cases.
This is significant because the Court’s concern was not simply about identifying encroachments but about ensuring that its directions ultimately produce results on the ground.
The administration has accordingly been placed under an obligation to move beyond preparation of reports and take concrete steps for removal.
Another important component of the order concerns future encroachments.
The Court directed that whenever the District Collector receives information concerning an encroachment, the information should be verified and appropriate action should follow.
This creates an ongoing responsibility rather than limiting the administration’s duty to the encroachments already identified in the Collector’s affidavit.
The Court’s observations concerning the media and journalists are particularly noteworthy.
It stated that the media and journalists are also “eyes and ears of the public” and have a role in ensuring that encroachments do not take place.
The Court therefore indicated that journalists who come across instances of encroachment can inform the Collector, Jaipur.
The observation recognises the practical value of public participation in environmental governance. Government authorities may not always be able to identify every encroachment immediately, particularly when such encroachments are spread over extensive areas.
Information from journalists and members of the public can assist the administration in identifying potential violations.
At the same time, the mechanism retains an important safeguard: information received from the public is not treated automatically as proof of encroachment. The Collector must verify the information before taking appropriate steps.
Thus, the Court’s direction creates a reporting mechanism rather than delegating administrative or enforcement powers to private citizens.
The wider legal principle underlying the Court’s intervention is the protection of public resources and environmental assets.
Rivers, lakes, drainage channels and catchment areas have a function that extends beyond the boundaries of individual land parcels. Their obstruction or degradation can affect entire communities.
An encroachment upon a drainage channel may prevent the natural movement of rainwater. Similarly, encroachment upon a catchment area can interfere with the flow of water into a reservoir or dam.
The Court’s focus on the areas feeding the Ramgarh Dam therefore reflects a broader understanding of water-body protection: preserving a reservoir requires protecting the system that sustains it.
The Court’s order also illustrates the balance between environmental protection and procedural fairness.
The objective of removing encroachments may be compelling, but the Court did not authorise arbitrary or immediate dispossession without notice. Instead, it established a mechanism through which the affected persons could be informed and given the required period to act.
Once that opportunity is provided, continued occupation would expose the encroachers to coercive enforcement and recovery of the costs associated with removal.
The Court’s approach is therefore neither one of unrestricted administrative power nor one that allows procedural objections to indefinitely frustrate protection of public land.
It seeks to ensure that lawful procedure and effective enforcement operate together.
The significance of the order also extends to the principle of accountability in environmental administration. Once the Collector has identified the encroachments and placed the information before the Court, the administration is expected to take concrete action.
The Court’s directions provide a structured process: publication of the list, a 15-day opportunity, removal in cases of continued occupation, recovery of removal expenses and police assistance where necessary.
The Court has also kept the connected matters pending and directed that they be taken up next on September 15, 2026.
The proceedings therefore remain under judicial monitoring.
The order should not be understood as permitting indiscriminate removal of every structure merely on the basis of an allegation. The affected persons remain entitled to the procedural protections recognised by law, and the Collector has been directed to verify information before taking action.
However, once an encroachment is established and the prescribed opportunity has been provided, the Court has made it clear that the State cannot indefinitely postpone enforcement.
The directions ultimately place the protection of rivers and water channels within a framework of shared responsibility. The State has the primary obligation to identify and remove unlawful encroachments, while citizens and the media can assist by bringing information to the administration’s attention.
The Court’s recognition of journalists as the “eyes and ears of the public” is particularly relevant in this context. It underscores that environmental protectin is not solely an administrative concern but a matter in which public vigilance can play a mean