Environmental Protection | Encroachment on Water Bodies Must Be Removed Immediately : National Green Tribunal

The National Green Tribunal has reaffirmed the imperative of protecting water bodies from encroachments, directing immediate action under environmental and revenue laws. This order underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing environmental protection through proactive measures, even at interim stages, setting a precedent for swift administrative compliance in ecological conservation matters.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Vishnu Kumar Vaishnav, filed an original application before the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, alleging serious encroachments on Dhrarmo Talab and Fateh Sagar (collectively referred to as Baba Talab) in Tehsil Kotri, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The water bodies, critical to local ecology, were reportedly subjected to unauthorized constructions and land grabs, violating environmental norms and revenue laws.

Procedural History

The matter was listed for hearing on 02.02.2026, with the following key developments:

• The applicant presented joint committee reports and records submitted by the Tehsildar, documenting the encroachments.
• The State of Rajasthan acknowledged the violations but cited ongoing actions under existing legal frameworks.
• A third party sought impleadment as an affected party, which the Tribunal permitted subject to filing an application within two weeks.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought urgent intervention to:

• Direct the District Collector, Bhilwara, to remove encroachments from the water bodies.
• Ensure compliance with environmental protection laws, including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
• Prevent further degradation of the water bodies pending final adjudication.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Tribunal was whether interim directions could be issued to remove encroachments on water bodies under environmental protection laws, even before the final disposal of the application. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the scope of administrative authority in enforcing such directions without awaiting a detailed inquiry.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant's counsel, Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, argued:

• The encroachments posed an imminent threat to the environment, warranting immediate action under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
• Reliance was placed on the precautionary principle, as enunciated in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, to justify urgent intervention.
• The joint committee reports and Tehsildar's records provided prima facie evidence of violations, sufficient for interim relief.

For the Respondent/State

The State of Rajasthan, represented by Mr. Shoeb H. Khan, contended:

• Actions were already being taken under revenue laws and environmental regulations, and no further directions were necessary.
• The matter required a detailed inquiry to ascertain the extent of encroachments and the parties responsible.
• Immediate removal of encroachments could lead to displacement of occupants, necessitating a balanced approach.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ishwar Singh (Expert Member), emphasized the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as guiding doctrines for environmental adjudication. The analysis proceeded as follows:

1. Primacy of Environmental Protection: The Tribunal noted that water bodies are ecologically sensitive zones, and their protection is non-negotiable under Article 21 of the Constitution and environmental jurisprudence. Citing M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Bench observed that environmental degradation cannot be justified on grounds of procedural delays or administrative inaction.

2. Interim Directions Under NGT Act: The Tribunal relied on Section 15(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which empowers it to pass interim orders to prevent environmental harm. The provision was interpreted to allow immediate relief where prima facie evidence of violations exists, even without a full-fledged trial.

"The protection of water bodies is not merely a statutory obligation but a constitutional mandate. The Tribunal cannot remain a mute spectator to their degradation while procedural formalities are completed."

1. Administrative Authority and Compliance: The Tribunal directed the District Collector, Bhilwara, to take every lawful action to remove encroachments, emphasizing that environmental protection laws and revenue laws provide sufficient authority for such measures. The order underscored that administrative discretion must align with environmental imperatives, and failure to act could invite contempt proceedings.

2. Balancing Interests: While acknowledging the State's concerns about displacement, the Tribunal held that environmental protection takes precedence over individual interests in cases of ecological harm. The order left room for affected parties to seek legal remedies, including impleadment, but did not dilute the urgency of removing encroachments.

The Verdict

The Tribunal allowed the application in part, issuing the following directions:

• The District Collector, Bhilwara, was directed to immediately remove encroachments on Dhrarmo Talab and Fateh Sagar under environmental and revenue laws.
• The matter was listed for further hearing on 25.02.2026, with liberty to affected parties to seek impleadment within two weeks.
• The State was directed to file a compliance report detailing the actions taken to protect the water bodies.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Immediate Action Is Mandatory for Environmental Violations

The Tribunal's order reinforces that environmental protection laws require proactive enforcement, even at interim stages. Practitioners should note:

• Prima facie evidence of environmental harm is sufficient to seek urgent relief under Section 15 of the NGT Act.
• Courts are likely to prioritize ecological conservation over procedural formalities, especially where water bodies or other sensitive zones are involved.
• Administrative authorities must act swiftly to comply with environmental directions, as non-compliance may lead to contempt proceedings.

Water Bodies Are Protected Under Multiple Legal Frameworks

The judgment highlights the convergence of environmental and revenue laws in protecting water bodies. Key takeaways include:

• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Prohibits pollution of water bodies and empowers authorities to take remedial action.
• Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956: Provides mechanisms for removing encroachments on public lands, including water bodies.
• Constitutional Mandate: Article 21 and Article 48A impose a duty on the State to protect the environment, which courts will enforce rigorously.

Affected Parties Must Seek Legal Remedies Proactively

While the Tribunal permitted impleadment, it did not stay the removal of encroachments. This sets a precedent for:

• Affected occupants to approach courts expeditiously to protect their interests, rather than relying on delays.
• NGT's willingness to balance environmental protection with due process, provided affected parties act within stipulated timelines.
• Local authorities to ensure that rehabilitation measures are considered where displacement is unavoidable, in line with principles of natural justice.