Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Interfere With Bulldozer Action On Encroachments Over Catchment Area Of Ummed Sagar Dam
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam against State's action of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal at the Rajasthan High Court held that no possession over land forming part of water body could be regularized.The petitioners were residing on Khasra No. 5 at Chopsani Jagir for past 15 to 20 years. Pursuant to...
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam against State's action of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal at the Rajasthan High Court held that no possession over land forming part of water body could be regularized.
The petitioners were residing on Khasra No. 5 at Chopsani Jagir for past 15 to 20 years. Pursuant to an encroachment complaint submitted to the District Vigilance Committee, the committee began dislodging the petitioners.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that apart from residing on the land for 15-20 years, petitioners had constructed residential houses and had also obtained electricity connections. The petitioners also had Aadhaar cards, rations cards and voter IDs which reflected their possession of the land in question.
Hence, without providing alternative shelter, they could not have been dispossessed by deployment of bulldozers and JCBs, in absence of any process of law being followed, and an opportunity of hearing being granted.
On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioners were encroachers on a government land that was classified as a water body which could not be permitted. Since no title documents were possessed by the petitioners, they were not entitled to any relief by the Court.
It was submitted that merely having an electricity connection or any other residential proof did not confer title, which the petitioners admittedly did not possess.
After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments put forth on behalf of the State, and highlighted that the land in question was owned by the P.H.E.D. Department and formed part of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam.
It was held that possession over land forming part of a water body could not be regularized, and since the petitioners were not possessing any proof of title, they were undisputedly encroachers, and had no case to seek relief from the Court.
Accordingly, it was held that no indulgence could be granted by the Court, and the petitions were dismissed.
Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
For Petitioners: Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate – cum – AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot; Ms. Mehali Mehta for Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG