Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed in public interest for removal of encroachments in the catchment area, obstructing the natural flow of water from hills of Mandore to Ram Talai Nadi in village Chainpura District Jodhpur. The writ petition is pending since the year 2007. The order sheet is complete with directions issued to the respondents from time to time to identify the encroachments and for removing them in accordance with law so that the water, which is the most precious commodity in the State of Rajasthan, flows naturally from the hills of Mandore to Ram Talai Nadi, a water resource for its use by the village to save the natural habitat and consequently the environment of the area.
(2.) THE orders passed by this Court from time to time, namely, orders dated 11.04.2007, 04.12.2007, 16.01.2013 and 10.04.2014, are quoted as below: - "11.04.2007. Admit. Issue notice. Rule is made returnable within two weeks. Meanwhile, no regularization of existing possession for encroachment in the catchment area of Surpura Dam and Ramtalal Nadi shall be made and no construction activity in that area shall be allowed to be commenced or continued. It shall be responsibility of the District Collector, Jodhpur to strictly carry out the aforesaid direction and to depute special task force towards no construction activity zone in the aforesaid area. Put up alongwith D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 605/2007. 04.12.2007 From the reply submitted by the State Government, it is an admitted case that State Government has allotted 68.3.10 bighas of land out of Agor land in khasra No. 522 of Chainpura. There is a clear direction of the Court in Abdul Rahman's case that there should not be any obstruction in the angor land. It is a land covered by natural flow of water and, therefore, this allotment is contrary to the directions of the orders of this Court where all such constructions or obstructions in the angor land since 1947 were required to be removed. The State Government has not filed any information about the fact that after allotment of angor land in 2001 what action has been taken by them in furtherance of direction contained in Abdul Rahman's case vis -a -vis this land in question which is admittedly part of angor land. The compliance report in respect of the said order passed in Abdul Rahman's case regarding permitting constructions contrary to the direction is angor land should be placed on record by the next date of hearing. Similarly in spite of the fact that irrigation department has pointed out to the RIICO that allotments proposed to be made in industrial area for the purpose of setting up of industry near Nagour -Surpura bypass road the proposed site for which the RIICO is allotting the land for setting up industry falls within the area of submergence of the dam yet the industries have been allowed to come over that area. The Managing Director, RIICO is required to present in Court to explain that why inspite of having been informed about such violation of Court's direction it has permitted and allowed the industries to come over the area in dispute on next date of hearing. We may notice that private respondents are beneficiary of such orders when the allotting authority considers that allotment of lands in question is in derogation order of this Court. Yet going ahead with such proposal cannot be countenanced. The beneficiaries want to justify the order of the State Government which is in defiance of the Court's order. It at all in the fact of the present case, the justification can only be furnished by the allotting authority. Likewise the Collector, Jodhpur shall also remain present on the next date of hearing to explain that despite having realised that angor land has been allotted in 2001 over which no construction can be raised in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in Abdul Rahman's case, why necessary follow up action has not been taken to see that areas covered by angor land by construction or the allotments made in favour of those parties may be shifted to some other suitable place. Meanwhile, the interim order passed by this Court on 11.4.2004 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 386/2007 shall remain in force. The respondents shall also present in Court with the details of action taken by the respondents Stae agencies in furtherance of direction dated 11.4.2007. Case may be listed for orders on 7.1.2008 ask prayed. 16.01.2013 The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, preferred this petition for writ to have a direction for the respondents to remove encroachments from the catchment areas of Surpura Dam, its feeder canal and Ramtalai Nadi situated at Ward No. 56 of municipal area of Jodhpur metro city. A direction is further sought not to regularize any unauthorized construction or encroachment on Government land falling within the catchment area of Surpura Dam. This court while admitting the petition for writ directed the respondents as an interim measure not to regularize the existing possessions or encroachments in the catchment area of Surpura Dam and Ramtalai Nadi. The area aforesaid was also restrained from having any construction activity. The Collector, Jodhpur was directed to carry out the direction aforesaid strictly by deputing a special task force. By the order dated 04.12.2007, the court while reiterating interim order aforesaid, noticed certain violations on the part of the respondents and therefore, a direction was given to provide necessary details about the steps taken by the Government and its agencies in furtherance of the direction given under the order dated 11.04.2007. By the order dated 07.12.2009, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to submit latest status of removal of encroachments so also removal of constructions made in pursuant to the allotments made by the Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation (RIICO). It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the directions aforesaid, no adequate action has been taken by the respondents to remove the encroachments existing and as a matter of fact, construction activities in the area concerned are in currency with full swing. Suffice to mention that the Department of Irrigation in its reply to the writ petition accepted in quite unambiguous terms about existence of encroachments in catchment and embankment areas of Surpura Dam. Necessary particulars in this regard are given in para 2 onwards upto para 9 of the reply to the writ petition. Though a compliance report is also given on behalf of the respondents, but that is not at all satisfactory. Looking to the facts available on record and further conveyed by learned counsel for the parties, we are having our doubts about adequate compliance of the directions given by this court noticed above. Having considered the same, we deem it appropriate to avail a definite report of the area concerned by tomorrow. The Collector, Jodhpur is directed to personally inspect the area and provide a necessary report to this court relating to encroachments existing in the area concerned. The Collector, Jodhpur as well as the Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Authority are directed to remain personally present before this court tomorrow with the necessary details as required. A typed copy of this order is given to Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, learned assisting counsel to Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General. Put up tomorrow at 02.15 p.m. 10.04.2014 From what has been given out before us and what has transpired during the course of submissions of the matter, the position is disquieting, particularly when it appears that the respondents related with the Revenue Department of the Government; and more particularly with Tehsil Jodhpur, have not come out forthright in this matter; and several of the aspects, including those relating to the record and site have been kept in ambiguity, vagueness and uncertainty, particularly as regards the location of Khasra No. 522 Village Chainpura and the construction existing thereat. On 07.04.2014, when this matter was heard for some time, as regards the queries on the location of the land and stand of the Government, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. K.L. Thakur prayed for some time to complete his instructions. We expected a specific report of the site to be placed before us. However, what has been filed before us in the name of the so -called compliance report by the Tehsildar is only a compilation of reports and nothing more inasmuch as, only the reports made in the past have been purportedly compiled by the Tehsildar. The learned counsel Ms. Nurpur Bhati appearing for the private respondents, who perceive threat of demolition of their constructions, submitted that at this very Khasra No. 522, several other buildings are already existing including that of a School, Ayurvedic Hospital and even the Office of Municipal Corporation itself apart from other constructions which have not been shown in the so called topographical survey map. Upon such submissions, when we put further queries and expressed our dissatisfaction that the details of the situation at site have not been given out, the learned Additional Advocate General produced a so -called "Fard Mauka" of the site, said to have been prepared by the Tehsildar Jodhpur with other persons relating with the Land Records Office. This site report shall be placed on record by the learned AAG during the course of the day. It is also pointed out by learned counsel Mr. P.M. Vyas appearing for other private respondents who too are in possession with similarly situated private respondents, that even the suggestion about non -availability of trace plan is not correct and has shown a photostat of the certified copy, said to have been issued by the Settlement Department from the trace -plan. Upon our expressing dissatisfaction that the things have not been put before the Court forthright and several aspects have been kept rather vague and uncertain and even all the existing structures and constructions at Khasra No. 522 have not been precisely indicated, the learned Tehsildar present in the Court submits that he has drawn the report only to the extent he could get instructions and visited the site on 08.04.2014, though the same were a holiday and several of the officers were not available. The learned Tehsildar further submits that he shall place precisely all the facts with his detailed report and prays for some time. Having regard to the submissions made and looking to the questions involved, we deem it proper to extend an opportunity to the Tehsildar to make a specific and extensive report after examining the record as also after visiting the site. Two weeks' time is granted for the purpose. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is also considered proper and hence ordered that until next date of hearing in this matter, status quo at the site, as it exists today, shall be maintained by all the concerned. Put up on 21.05.2014." The persons, who have encroached on the land falling on the passage of water, have been made party to the proceedings. On 5.11.2014, we passed the following orders: - "We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The compliance report signed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur along with an affidavit has been filed in reference to the order of this Court dated 10.4.2014. We find that the compliance report discloses that certified map of the village Chainpura was either not available or was in a condition, from which no positive inferences can be drawn about the location of the plots and the extent of the offending constructions. We also find that pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, a list of large number of plots in the catchment area of Ram Talai Nadi was submitted. The report was confined to this Nadi and that too, without any comments of the Collector, Jodhpur. It appears that the Collector, Jodhpur is either not taking the matter seriously or feels satisfied by the incomplete compliance report submitted by his subordinate officers. Let the matter come up again on 2.12.2014. On that day, we expect the Collector, Jodhpur to give a comprehensive report with regard to the compliance of the orders passed by this Court and also give details of the constructions raised in the catchment area of Ram Talai Nadi identified by him and hold meetings with Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur, to propose the measures to restore and save the catchment area."
(3.) THE Collector, Jodhpur constituted a team of officers including the Additional District Collector (City), Jodhpur, Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur, Dy.Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Land Settlement Officer, Jodhpur, Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department Division Jodhpur, Tehsildar (Land Record) and Tehsildar Jodhpur (officiating). All these officers inspected the site on 19.11.2014 and have submitted a report, which is signed by them jointly, annexing therewith the report of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Division Jodhpur, and a topographical survey map of village Chainpura, which shows in different colours the areas including the channels of water in blue colour through which the rain water firstly accumulates at Chhoti Nadi at point -A in the East and at point -B in the West, and then from both directions upto Ram Talai Nadi. On both these streams, the encroachments have been identified. Whereas the encroachment No. 1 is a Pyau, the encroachment No. 2 is kachha construction of chhapra and baada by Nemi Chand and Yudhister, and encroachment No. 3 has been made by Lunji Bhati and Yudhister. The encroachment No. 4, which completely blocks the flow of water at point -B, has been made by one Bharat Ram S/o. Govind Ram by making kachha construction of baada and chhapra on the land settled with him on lease by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (now Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur).;