SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 1 of 19    

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 38040-38041 OF 2012  

National Institute of Medical Science University   

Rajasthan & Anr.                      …Petitioners  

versus  

State of  Rajasthan & Ors.                                            …Respondents   

WITH   

SLP (C) NOS. 38332-38333 of 2012    

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.    

1. These petitions are illustrative of how some interests can  

frustrate the rule of law and get away with it.  What the petitioners  

are responsible for, apparently along with several others, is creating a  

water shortage in Jaipur City and also ensuring that Ramgarh Lake  

which was made famous in the Asian Games held in 1982 is now  

completely dry and the catchment areas of Ramgarh Dam are  

rendered completely useless. This is a tragedy of enormous  

proportions and rather unfortunately neither the State of Rajasthan  

nor the Jaipur Development Authority has thought it fit to take stern

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 2 of 19    

remedial action. They are thereby compounding the woes of the  

residents of the city of Jaipur. It is often said that power comes with  

responsibility – and so should it be with the State and the authorities  

and the petitioner, particularly when it concerns the interests of the  

people.    

2. The origin of these petitions can be traced back to the decision  

of the Rajasthan High Court in Abdul Rahman v. State of  

Rajasthan.1 In this decision, the High Court attempted, through a  

series of directions, to ensure free flow of water in the catchment  

areas of Ramgarh Dam (near Jaipur) and through Tala River and  

Banganga River. The directions were the conclusion of a public  

interest litigation in which a public spirited person approached the  

Rajasthan High Court and highlighted the necessity of protecting  

tanks and ponds in Rajasthan for a proper and healthy environment  

to enable the people to enjoy quality life, the essence of the right of a  

citizen guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.  

3. What is the significance of Ramgarh Dam? The dam was  

constructed in 1903 having a catchment area of about 769.20 sq. km.  

spread over four Tehsils, namely, Jamvaramgarh, Amer, Shahpura  

and Viratnagar. The water harnessed by the dam was, till 1978, a  

source of irrigation. Thereafter, it became a source of drinking water  

                                                           1 DBCWP No.1536 of 2003  decided on 2nd August 2004

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 3 of 19    

for Jaipur City. During the Asian Games held in India in 1982  

Ramgarh Lake was one of the highlights of the Games and events  

relating to water sports were held in the Lake. Unfortunately, today  

the Lake is dry and apparently heavily encroached upon due to the  

omissions and commissions of various departments of the  

Government of Rajasthan. What is worse is that with the Lake drying  

up and the catchment areas without any water, Jaipur City is faced  

with a scarcity of water.  

4. With these ground realities in mind and while entertaining the  

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by Abdul Rahman, the High  

Court passed an order on 18th July 2003 requiring the State  

Government to undertake a general survey to identify the catchment  

areas of Ramgarh Dam that were misused for construction and  

mining purposes. This was in the context of what appeared to the  

High Court as indiscriminate mis-utilization of the catchment areas  

for construction and mining purposes which prevented lakes,  

reservoirs, rivers, ponds, etc., from receiving water even during the  

monsoon season. The survey was also intended to study the effect of  

utilization of the catchment areas for construction, mining and other  

purposes. The State Government was also required to suggest  

measures for restoring the catchment areas to their original shape and  

use.

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 4 of 19    

5. Pursuant to the directions given by the High Court on 18th July  

2003, the State Government constituted an Expert Committee which  

gave a report that makes for some very sad reading. However, the  

Expert Committee also gave as many as 15 valuable suggestions for  

restoring the catchment areas to their original shape and use. These  

suggestions were accepted by the High Court and directions issued to  

the State Government to consider the recommendations of the Expert  

Committee and chalk out a plan to take effective steps to restore the  

catchment areas. Three months time was granted to the State  

Government to give concrete and positive shape to the suggestions.  

6. Not surprisingly, no seriousness was attached to the decision  

and directions of the High Court in Abdul Rahman and matters were  

allowed to drift.  

Suo motu proceedings  

7. Under these circumstances, due to the lack of any positive and  

visible action by the State Government in preserving and protecting  

the catchment areas of Ramgarh Dam, a learned Single Judge of the  

Rajasthan High Court was persuaded to initiate suo motu  

proceedings titled as Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan (registered as  

SBCWP No.11153 of 2011).  

8. On 23rd August 2011 the learned Single Judge noted that the  

catchment areas of Ramgarh Dam were not being given the deserved

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 5 of 19    

importance due to a lack of coordination between various  

departments of the Government of Rajasthan. The learned judge also  

noted that no effective steps had been taken for implementing the  

directions issued in Abdul Rahman particularly with reference to  

Ramgarh Dam and that there was a lack of willingness on the part of  

the State Government to take required measures. Accordingly, the  

learned judge felt that some monitoring action was necessary for  

saving the water resources in Rajasthan and initially with reference  

to Ramgarh Dam. In view of this, the learned judge appointed a two  

member Monitoring Committee for implementing the directions  

relating to Ramgarh Dam in terms of the judgment in Abdul  

Rahman. The learned Single Judge also gave certain directions on  

23rd August 2011 some of which included the following:  

“(i) All the Departments involved in the present matter  

like Revenue, Forest, Irrigation, PHED, Environment,  

Mining, Panchayati Raj are directed to cooperate with each  

other to stop encroachment and illegal construction in the  

drainages, channels, nalas, river etc. in the four tehsils  

named above.  

(ii) State Government will ensure stoppage of  

encroachment and construction in the catchment area of  

Ramgarh Dam.  

(iii)      xxx           xxx             xxx                

(iv) State Government will come out with the plan for  

removal of encroachments so as to restore the position as  

was existing on 15.08.1947.    

xxx           xxx             xxx”               

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 6 of 19    

9. A perusal of the proceedings in the suo motu petition indicates  

that the Monitoring Committee put in considerable efforts and gave  

valuable inputs through its reports. In its written submissions filed  

before the learned Single Judge, it was noted that there is a problem  

of scarcity of water and even Ramgarh Dam, which was considered  

the only reservoir of water supply to Jaipur City had become dry due  

to encroachments and obstructions. The dam was unable to get water  

due to land grabbers, property dealers, constructions and farm  

houses, club houses, resorts, etc.  

10. In its written submissions, the Monitoring Committee noted  

that the petitioners before us had made massive encroachments in the  

catchment areas of Ramgarh Dam. The learned Single Judge took  

note of the reports and submissions of the Monitoring Committee  

and passed a final order on 29th May 2012 giving a series of  

directions with the expectation and hope that the directions would  

not remain only on paper but would be implemented in reality.  

Remedial steps   

11. The sequence of events over the last 15 years indicates that the  

effort made by the Division Bench of the High Court in Abdul  

Rahman as well as the effort made by the learned Single Judge in  

the suo motu proceedings hardly yielded any positive results at least

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 7 of 19    

insofar as they relate to the petitioner - the National Institute of  

Medical Sciences University or NIMS.  

12. However, before detailing the steps concerning NIMS, it must  

be stated that the Government of Rajasthan prepared an Initial  

Action Plan in July 2012 followed by a report prepared by a  

Technical Committee on 9th January 2013 on Less/no inflow in  

Ramgarh Dam (District Jaipur) Despite Average and Above Average  

Rainfall and Remedial Measures to Restore Inflow.  

13. During the hearing of these petitions, we had enquired from  

the learned counsel whether there is any water in Ramgarh Lake but  

were told that it is still bone dry. It appears to us, therefore, that the  

Initial Action Plan and the report of the Technical Committee as well  

as expectations and hope of the learned Single Judge that the  

directions, plans of action and remedial measures would not remain  

only on paper but would be implemented in reality have been  

completely belied. This is a pity.  

Facts relating to NIMS  

14. The petitioner is a University and presumably it is a University  

of some repute and responsibility. It made an application for  

allotment of land in village Jugalpur, Tehsil Amer in District Jaipur  

to the District Collector of Jaipur on 10th May 2002.  However, the  

application for allotment did not include Khasra No.526 with which

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 8 of 19    

we are concerned. NIMS apparently did not receive any reply to the  

application.  

15. For reasons that are not quite clear, NIMS sent a letter to the  

Chief Minister of Rajasthan on 28th February 2005 to the effect that  

it had allegedly encroached upon Khasra No. 526. Having denied the  

allegation, NIMS then sought allotment of that Khasra being No. 526  

Rakba 14.44 hectare.       

16. According to NIMS, it made several subsequent  

representations for allotment of Khasra No. 526 but received no  

reply from any of the authorities for as long as 10 years. During this  

period, NIMS presumed that the silence of the State Government  

meant that it had no objection to the allotment.  Accordingly, it  

claimed to have purchased several parcels of land including Khasra  

No. 526 from various Khatedars and claimed that demarcation of the  

land was also carried out by the Revenue authorities.  On the  

presumption that there was no objection to the allotment of the land,  

NIMS made massive construction on Khasra No. 526.  

17. Eventually and since no favourable action was taken on the  

representations made, NIMS filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1814  

of 2012 in the High Court praying that directions may be issued in its  

favour for allotment of land including Khasra No. 526 for its  

University. The writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 9 of 19    

Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 1st  

November 2012.  

18. Around that time, NIMS was issued a notice dated 13th  

February 2012 under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development  

Authority Act, 1982 in respect of the alleged encroachments on  

Khasra No. 526.  

19. Feeling aggrieved by the notice, NIMS preferred Appeal No.  

37 of 2012 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development  

Authority.  After hearing NIMS, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed  

the appeal by its judgment and order dated 12th October 2012. This  

led NIMS to prefer S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16836 of 2012 in the  

High Court. This writ petition was clubbed along with S.B. Civil  

Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2012 and both were dismissed by a learned  

Single Judge on 1st November 2012.  

20. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of both the writ petitions,  

NIMS preferred special appeals before the Division Bench of the  

High Court and these were registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal  

(Writ) Nos. 1455-1456 of 2012.  Both the appeals were heard by the  

Division Bench and dismissed by the impugned judgment and order  

dated 26th November 2012.  

Decision of the learned Single Judge  

21. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 10 of 19    

Single Judge indicates that in fact the land in dispute namely Khasra  

No. 526 originally vested in the State Government. By a Notification  

issued on 1st October 2007 it then vested in the Jaipur Development  

Authority and was brought within the limit of the Jaipur  

Development Authority.  Therefore, from 1st October 2007 only the  

Jaipur Development Authority had jurisdiction over the land bearing  

Khasra No. 526.  

22. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Appellate  

Tribunal had required measurements to be carried out with reference  

to Khasra No.526 and on 11th September 2012 it was found that  

NIMS had encroached upon land measuring 8125 sq. mtrs. in Khasra  

No. 526 and also in certain other areas.  But as we have mentioned  

above we are only concerned with Khasra No. 526.  With regard to  

the inaction on the representation made by NIMS for allotment of  

land, the learned Single Judge noted that merely because the  

concerned authorities had not taken any decision on the  

representation, NIMS was not entitled to presume that there was no  

objection to its taking possession of the land and constructing  

thereon.  Accordingly, the learned Single Judge found no error in the  

view taken by the Appellate Tribunal holding that NIMS had  

encroached on 8125 sq mtrs. of land in Khasra No. 526 and that  

NIMS was not entitled to make any construction thereon. While

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 11 of 19    

dismissing the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 1st  

November 2012 the learned Single Judge directed the Jaipur  

Development Authority to demolish the construction. However, it  

was further directed that demolition would not take place till 7th  

November 2012.  

Decision of the Division Bench  

23. NIMS appealed against the decision of the learned Single  

Judge. While deciding the appeals, the Division Bench accepted the  

view expressed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the  

appeals.    

24. Before the Division Bench, it was contended by NIMS that the  

land in dispute was pasture land and that it could be allotted to NIMS  

under the local laws including the 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 as well as the  

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder.   

Reference was also placed on the Rajasthan Improvement Trust  

(Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974.  The Division Bench took  

note of all these provisions and observed that in its initial application  

dated 10th May 2002 made to the Collector, no request was made by  

NIMS for allotment of Khasra No. 526.  For the first time such a

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 12 of 19    

request was made by NIMS on 28th February 2005 to the Chief  

Minister of Rajasthan and not to the concerned Collector who alone  

was competent to make the allotment.  The Division Bench also  

made a reference to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955  

and noted that Khatedari rights could not accrue in pasture land and  

therefore it was not available for allotment.   

25. The Division Bench held that even otherwise, after 1st October  

2007 Khasra No. 526 vested in the Jaipur Development Authority  

and therefore the allotment could be made only by that Authority in  

terms of Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act and not  

by the State Government.2  The High Court noted that no application  

                                                           2 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:  

Provided that the Authority may dispose of any such land—  (a) without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon; or  (b) after undertaking or carrying out such development as it thinks fit, to such  person, in such manner and subject to such covenants and conditions, as it  may consider expedient to impose for securing development according to  plan.  

(2) No development of any land shall be undertaken or carried out except by or under the  control and supervision of the Authority.  (3) If any land vested in the Authority is required at any time by the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur for  carrying out its functions, or by the State Government for any other purpose, the State  Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, place such land at the disposal of the  Nagar Nigam, Jaipur or any Department of the State Government on such terms and conditions,  as may be deemed fit.   

(4) All land acquired by the Authority, or by the State Government and transferred to the  Authority, shall be disposed of by the Authority in the same manner as may be prescribed for  land in sub-section (1).

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 13 of 19    

was made by NIMS to the Jaipur Development Authority for  

allotment of Khasra No. 526 or any other Khasra of village  

Jugalpura.  

26. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench took the view  

that NIMS had encroached upon Khasra No. 526 and had raised  

constructions thereon without any permission or sanction and that it  

was not possible to ignore the illegalities committed by NIMS.     

27. NIMS contended before the Division Bench that since massive  

constructions had already been made, no useful purpose would be  

served by demolishing the construction. It was submitted that  

demolition would not serve any public purpose. This submission was  

rejected by the Division Bench by relying upon a decision of this  

Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab3 to the effect that if land is  

not available for allotment and construction is made thereon, then  

that construction must be demolished.   

28. The High Court also took the view that if appropriate steps are  

not taken to remove the encroachment, it would encourage others to  

encroach upon land and to seek regularization of any illegal  

construction made thereon.   

29. As far as the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal is  

concerned, the Division Bench noted that the report of 11th  

                                                           3 (2011) 11 SCC 396

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 14 of 19    

September 2012 was unimpeachable and there was no doubt that  

NIMS had encroached on 8125 sq. mtrs. of land in Khasra No. 526.   

Proceeding in this Court  

30. It was submitted by learned counsel for NIMS that no  

encroachment was made by NIMS and that in any event there were a  

large number of encroachers in the catchment areas. According to  

learned counsel there was no reason why only NIMS should be  

singled out for adverse or punitive treatment.  We are not at all  

impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel.     

31. What is before us is really only a factual dispute. NIMS has  

not been able to show any perversity, on facts, in the orders passed  

by the Appellate Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge or by the  

Division Bench.     

32. One of the factual conclusions arrived at by the High Court is  

that NIMS had made a request for allotment of Khasra No. 526 for  

the first time only on 28th February 2005 and that too before the  

Chief Minister who was not the competent authority to make the  

allotment – the competent authority being the Collector of Jaipur  

district.  Why NIMS chose to directly approach the Chief Minister is  

a mystery which can be solved only by NIMS.  

33. Post 1st October 2007 there was no request made by NIMS to  

the Jaipur Development Authority for the allotment of Khasra No.

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 15 of 19    

526.      

34. Assuming there was no response from the Chief Minister to  

that or any other representation made by NIMS to any authority  

including the Jaipur Development Authority for allotment of Khasra  

No. 526, NIMS had no right to assume that its request for allotment  

had been accepted (or not rejected) by the Chief Minister or the  

Jaipur Development Authority and on that assumption to make  

constructions on the land without any permission or sanction.  

35. It has also come on record as a matter of fact that NIMS had  

encroached upon 8125 sq. mtrs. in Khasra No. 526. It has also come  

on record that in fact NIMS had not filed any objections to the  

Report dated 11th September 2012 before the Appellate Tribunal.  It  

has also come on record that as a matter of fact due to the illegal and  

unlawful construction having been made in the area by several  

parties including NIMS, Ramgarh Lake is now absolutely dry and  

the residents of Jaipur city are suffering from water shortage because  

of this - since water from the region was being supplied to Jaipur city  

before the area dried up. These undisputed facts are enough to  

dismiss the petitions filed by NIMS.   There is no law that supports  

the brazenness of NIMS in wantonly encroaching on Khasra No. 526  

and then making huge constructions thereon.  

36.  Learned counsel for NIMS did not place before us any law or

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 16 of 19    

decision to support the encroachment by NIMS on Khasra No. 526.  

But, learned counsel for the Jaipur Development Authority as well as  

learned counsel for Dinesh Kumar Saini a reporter of Current Jwala  

(Respondent No. 2) drew our attention to Section 16 of the Rajasthan  

Tenancy Act, 1955 which prohibits accrual of Khatedari rights in  

pasture land. 4  It was submitted that in view of this provision,  

assuming the land in Khasra No. 526 to be pasture land, NIMS could  

not have acquired Khatedari rights as claimed.    

Conclusion  

37. It is most unfortunate that despite orders passed by the  

Rajasthan High Court in Abdul Rahman and in the suo motu petition  

and views expressed by the Monitoring Committee appointed by the  

High Court as well as the Expert Committee set up by the State  

Government and plan of action having been prepared by the State  

Government, nothing substantive appears to have been achieved on  

the ground over the years.     

38. Under the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the  

petitions but with costs of Rs.10 lakhs per petition for the brazen  

                                                           4 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;  

(ii) to (xiv) xxxx  Provided that …..

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 17 of 19    

encroachment.  The amount should be deposited by NIMS in the  

Registry of this Court within six weeks.    

39. In our opinion, merely dismissing the petitions would serve no  

useful purpose since it appears to us that NIMS is a rather powerful  

and influential entity. We say this because it has been able to  

successfully frustrate its eviction and demolition of the construction  

for at least one decade. Even before us an attempt was made to take  

an adjournment so that it could possibly use its influence over  

whoever it may be to get some favourable executive orders.    

40.  In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Ors5  

this Court directed enforcement of the rule of law by demolition of  

unauthorized constructions. It was held as follows:   

“The High Court has directed dismantling of the whole  

project and for restoration of the park to its original  

condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no  

consideration should be shown to the builder or any other  

person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now  

almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the  

appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to  

exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such  

discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality  

or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it  

is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished.  

There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by  

expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters.  

Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are  

not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of  

judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their  

personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial  

discretion the wherever it is required to be exercised has to  

be in accordance with law and set legal principles. As will  

                                                           5 (1999) 6 SCC 464

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 18 of 19    

be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and  

allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand we  

have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika  

to construct and maintain parking lots.”  

41. This view was followed and endorsed in Jagpal Singh in the  

following words:  

“In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu the  

Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition  

of a shopping complex constructed at the cost of over Rs.  

100 crores.   

In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of  

Orissa 6  this Court held that even where the law permits  

compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such  

compounding should only be by way of an exception. In our  

opinion this decision will apply with even greater force in  

cases of encroachment of village common land. Ordinarily,  

compounding in such cases should only be allowed where  

the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of  

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually  

being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a  

school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.  

In many States government orders have been issued by the  

State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land  

to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of  

some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are  

illegal, and should be ignored.”  

42. Keeping in mind the view expressed by this Court in these and  

other decisions, we also direct the demolition of the unauthorized  

construction by or on behalf of NIMS on Khasra No. 526. The  

demolition should be carried out by the Jaipur Development  

Authority with the assistance of the State Government and the  

                                                           6 (2004) 8 SCC 733

               SLP (C) Nos. 38040- 38041 of 2012 etc.                                                            Page 19 of 19    

Collector of Jaipur District on or before 30th November, 2017. The  

Director General of Police of Rajasthan is directed to render all  

necessary assistance in the process of demolition.  The cost of  

demolition and removal of rubble etc. will be at the expense of  

NIMS. Any pending application made by NIMS for compounding  

the unauthorized construction or regularizing it stands superseded in  

view of our decision.   

43. We are giving these peremptory time bound directions in view  

of the fact that the learned Single Judge felt it appropriate, while  

dismissing the writ petitions filed by NIMS, to grant interim relief  

limited to only 7 days. More importantly, we are of opinion that 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.   

44. The petitions are dismissed with the above directions.  

.......……………………J  

              (Madan B. Lokur)   

………………………...J  

New Delhi;               (Deepak Gupta)  

November  9, 2017