Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Encroachments on Ramgarh Dam Catchment Area: National Institute of Medical Science University vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 9, 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 935

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a private university encroach upon government land, construct buildings without permission, and then claim a right to the land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the National Institute of Medical Science University (NIMS) and the State of Rajasthan. The Court found that NIMS had indeed encroached upon the catchment area of Ramgarh Dam, leading to severe water shortages in Jaipur City and ordered the demolition of the illegal constructions. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Rajasthan High Court, highlighting the degradation of water bodies in Rajasthan, particularly the Ramgarh Dam. The Ramgarh Dam, once a source of irrigation and drinking water for Jaipur City and a venue for water sports during the 1982 Asian Games, had become dry due to encroachments and obstructions. The High Court had issued directions to protect the catchment areas of the dam, but these were not effectively implemented. The National Institute of Medical Science University (NIMS) was found to have encroached upon land within the catchment area, specifically Khasra No. 526, and constructed buildings without proper authorization.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rajasthan High Court initially took up the matter through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in *Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan*, aiming to protect the catchment areas of Ramgarh Dam. Dissatisfied with the lack of action, a single judge initiated suo motu proceedings. The High Court appointed a Monitoring Committee, which found that NIMS had made massive encroachments in the catchment area. The single judge dismissed NIMS’s writ petitions, and the Division Bench also upheld the decision. NIMS then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several legal provisions:

• Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982: This section pertains to the powers of the Jaipur Development Authority to take action against encroachments.
• Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982: This section states that land in the Jaipur region vests in the Jaipur Development Authority and can be disposed of by the Authority. The section states,
  “54. Land to vest in the Authority and its disposal. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956), the land as defined in section 103 of that Act, excluding land referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the said section and Nazul Land placed at the disposal of a local authority under section 102-A of that Act in Jaipur Region shall, immediately after establishment of the Authority under section 3 of this Act, be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of and vested in the Authority which shall take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government and may use the same for the purposes of this Act and may dispose of the same by way of allotment, regularization or auction subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, lay down and in such manner, as it may, from time to time, prescribe:”
• Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: This section prohibits the accrual of Khatedari rights (ownership rights) in pasture land. The section states,
  “16. Lands in which Khatedari rights shall not accrue – Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law or enactment for the time being in force in any part of the State Khatedari rights shall not accrue in – (i) pasture land;”
• Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and Other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963: These rules govern the allotment of government land for public utility purposes.
• Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974: These rules relate to the disposal of urban land by improvement trusts.

The Court also considered the constitutional right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution, as highlighted in the initial PIL.

Arguments

Arguments by NIMS:

• NIMS contended that it had not encroached upon the land, and there were many other encroachers in the catchment area.
• NIMS argued that it had applied for allotment of land, including Khasra No. 526, and the government’s silence implied consent.
• NIMS claimed that it had purchased land, including Khasra No. 526, from various Khatedars and that the Revenue authorities had demarcated the land.
• NIMS submitted that since massive constructions had already been made, demolishing them would not serve any public purpose.
• NIMS argued that the land in dispute was pasture land and could be allotted to NIMS under local laws.

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan and Jaipur Development Authority:

• The State and the Jaipur Development Authority argued that NIMS had encroached upon government land, specifically Khasra No. 526, which was under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority.
• They argued that NIMS had not made any application to the competent authority (the Collector) for allotment of Khasra No. 526 until 2005 and had not made any application to the Jaipur Development Authority after 2007 when the land vested with it.
• They contended that NIMS had no right to assume that its request for allotment had been accepted and make constructions on the land without permission.
• They highlighted that NIMS had encroached upon 8125 sq. mtrs. of land in Khasra No. 526.
• They pointed out that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, prohibits the accrual of Khatedari rights in pasture land.

Arguments by Dinesh Kumar Saini (Reporter):

• Dinesh Kumar Saini supported the arguments of the State of Rajasthan and the Jaipur Development Authority.
• He also drew attention to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which prohibits accrual of Khatedari rights in pasture land.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether NIMS had illegally encroached upon the catchment area of Ramgarh Dam.
2. Whether the construction made by NIMS on the encroached land should be demolished.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court acknowledged the directions in Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan, highlighting the need to protect water bodies.
• The Court followed Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need to demolish unauthorized constructions.
• The Court endorsed the view in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Ors, stating that no consideration should be shown to builders of unauthorized constructions.
• The Court referred to Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, to state that compounding of unsanctioned constructions should be an exception.
• The Court noted the notice issued to NIMS under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.
• The Court relied on Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, to state that the land vested with the Jaipur Development Authority.
• The Court referred to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, to state that no Khatedari rights can accrue in pasture land.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the environmental consequences of NIMS’s actions. The Court emphasized the need to protect public resources, particularly water bodies, and to deter illegal encroachments. The Court also noted that NIMS had not followed proper procedures for obtaining land allotment and had proceeded with construction without any permission or sanction. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the illegal construction had contributed to the drying up of Ramgarh Lake and the water shortage in Jaipur City.

Fact:Law

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual findings of encroachment and illegal construction (60%) than by legal considerations alone (40%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because NIMS had not followed proper procedures, and the illegal construction had a negative impact on the environment. The final decision was reached based on the factual findings of encroachment, the legal provisions, and the need to uphold the rule of law.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• NIMS did not follow the correct procedures for land allotment.
• NIMS made constructions on the land without permission.
• The land was under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority.
• The encroachment contributed to the drying up of Ramgarh Lake.
• The rule of law must be upheld, and illegal constructions must be demolished.

The Court stated:

• “There is no law that supports the brazenness of NIMS in wantonly encroaching on Khasra No. 526 and then making huge constructions thereon.”
• “Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out.”
• “The possibility of water being now made available to Jaipur City in due course of time takes far greater precedence over the interests of NIMS and those associated with it.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, both of whom agreed on the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• Private entities cannot encroach upon government land and construct buildings without proper authorization.
• Silence from the government on a land allotment request cannot be construed as consent.
• Unauthorized constructions must be demolished to uphold the rule of law, especially when they negatively impact the environment.
• The protection of public resources, such as water bodies, is of paramount importance.
• Proper procedures must be followed when seeking land allotment.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• NIMS was directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10 lakhs per petition in the Registry of the Court within six weeks.
• The Jaipur Development Authority was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction by or on behalf of NIMS on Khasra No. 526 on or before 30th November, 2017.
• The State Government and the Collector of Jaipur District were directed to assist in the demolition process.
• The Director General of Police of Rajasthan was directed to render all necessary assistance in the process of demolition.
• The cost of demolition and removal of rubble was to be borne by NIMS.
• Any pending application made by NIMS for compounding the unauthorized construction or regularizing it was superseded by the Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that unauthorized constructions on government land, especially when they impact public resources like water bodies, must be demolished to uphold the rule of law. This case reinforces the principle that private entities cannot encroach upon government land and construct buildings without proper authorization. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of environmental protection and the need to deter illegal encroachments. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case reiterates the strict enforcement of existing laws and principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the National Institute of Medical Science University (NIMS), upholding the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court found that NIMS had illegally encroached upon the catchment area of Ramgarh Dam and ordered the demolition of the unauthorized constructions. This judgment underscores the importance of environmental protection, the rule of law, and the need to deter illegal encroachments. The Court’s decision also highlights the responsibility of private entities to follow proper procedures when seeking land allotment and to refrain from constructing buildings without permission.