The Rajasthan High Court, through Justice Sunil Beniwal, has firmly refused to interfere with the bulldozer action taken against alleged encroachments on the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam in Jodhpur. The Court dismissed a series of petitions filed by individuals residing on Khasra No. 5 in Chopsani Jagir who claimed long-standing possession of the land.
The petitioners stated that they had been living in the area for 15 to 20 years and had constructed both kachcha and pakka houses. They further claimed to have electricity connections, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and voter ID cards—documents which, according to them, showed their physical possession.
"The respondents have now begun dislodging the petitioners from the land in question without providing any alternative shelter,” the plea stated, terming the action as unjust and lacking due process.
Read Also:- J&K High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Citing Missing FSL Report and Doubts Over Evidence
It was contended that without offering an alternate location or following legal procedures, the state authorities used bulldozers and JCB machines to evict the residents.
However, the State, represented by Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar, argued that the petitioners were illegal encroachers on government land classified as part of a vital water body. It was highlighted that the land is owned by the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and forms part of the Ummed Sagar Dam’s catchment area.
“Mere possession of electricity connections or other residential documents does not establish any legal right or title over the land,” submitted the State.
Read Also:- Allahabad HC Slams Family for Opposing Woman’s Right to Marry Man of Her Choice, Calls It ‘Despicable’
The Court noted that the petitioners failed to provide any title documents or legal proof of ownership. It reaffirmed legal principles laid down by both the Supreme Court and High Courts, stating that land classified as a water body cannot be regularized under any circumstance.
“The petitioners are, undisputedly, encroachers and, therefore, no indulgence can be granted by this Court,” the judgment stated.
Justice Beniwal concluded that the petition was without merit and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of protecting land classified as a water body from any unauthorized occupation.
“In the absence of any proof of title, the petitioners have no case for seeking relief under this Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction,” held the Court.
Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
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
