IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.821 OF 2004

Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti … Appellant

Vs.

Lakh Singh & Ors. … Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.828 OF 2004

State of Rajasthan & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

Lakh Singh & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

A village pond in village Raniwara Kalan, District Jalore, was shown  

as ‘gair mumkin nada’, in the revenue records. The said pond fell into disuse  

and after sometime the District Collector, Jalore allotted 0.48 hectares out of  

the said area, on a 99 year lease to Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti (‘Samiti’  

for short), the appellant in C.A.No.821/2004, vide order dated 6.8.2001 for  

the purpose of construction of a students’ hostel.

1

2. One  of  the  villagers  (the  first  respondent  in  the  two  appeals)  

challenged the allotment of land in a public interest litigation on the ground  

that the village pond cannot be allotted for construction. The High Court, by  

the impugned order dated 20.11.2002, allowed the said petition. It recorded a  

finding that the land records clearly showed that the disputed plot allotted to  

the Samiti was part of the village pond. It held that such land which formed  

part of a pond could not have been allotted for the purpose of making any  

construction. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside  

the allotment dated 6.8.2001 in favour of the Samiti. However, having noted  

the fact that the land had been allotted to the Samiti for the purpose of a  

students hostel for the benefit of backward classes, the High Court directed  

the State government to allot a suitable alternative land for the said hostel  

purpose to the Samiti within three months.

3. The said order is challenged in these two appeals by the Samiti and by  

the State government. As noticed above, the High Court, after examining the  

revenue  records,  has  recorded  a  finding of  fact  that  the  land which  was  

allotted, was a pond. Learned counsel for the appellants in the two appeals  

contended that the land though described in the revenue records as a ‘gair  

mumkin nada’ was neither a pond nor a channel leading to a water body and  

2

there is no water in the said land; and that the patwari had given a report that  

the land was fit for allotment and therefore there was no irregularity in the  

allotment.

4. This court, in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi [2001 (6) SCC 496]  

observed thus :

“There is concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it  varies in the rainy season. In such a case no part of it could have been  allotted  to  anybody  for  construction  of  house  building  or  any  allied  purposes.

It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like  forests,  tanks,  ponds,  hillock,  mountain  etc.  are  nature’s  bounty.  They  maintain  delicate  ecological  balance.  They  need  to  be  protected  for  a  proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality  life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the  Constitution.  The  Government,  including  the  Revenue  Authorities  i.e.  Respondents  11 to  13,  having noticed that  a  pond is  falling in  disuse,  should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on  one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided  better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the  best  protection against  knavish attempts  to seek allotment  in  non-abadi  sites.”         

5. We  find  that  after  examining  the  entire  facts,  the  High  Court  has  

recorded a finding that the land allotted was part of a village pond.  The  

report of Patwari regarding suitability of land for allotment cannot supersede  

the  revenue  entries.  Therefore,  we  do  not  propose  to  interfere  with  the  

impugned order of the High Court.

3

6. The appellants contended that a civil suit filed by the villagers for a  

similar relief is pending and in view of it, the public interest litigation ought  

not to have been entertained. Mere pendency of  a suit by others, will not  

affect the maintainability of the writ petition in public interest.  

7. In view of the above, we dismiss these appeals making it clear that if  

no alternative land has been allotted by the State to the Samiti (appellant in  

CA No.821/2004) for the purpose of the students hostel, it shall do so within  

a period of four months from today as directed by the High Court.

…………………………..J. (R V Raveendran)

…………………………..J. (P Sathasivam)

New Delhi; …………………………..J. February 17, 2011. (A K Patnaik)

4