Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Nitin Jain vs The Principal Secretary ... on 10 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4523/2026
1. Shri Nitin Jain S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Bagicha Colony, Parshi Chall, Abu Road,
District Sirohi.
2. Shri Manoj Chourasiya S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Ambica Colony, House No. 17, Near
Mahaveer Talkies, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
3. Shri Jayantilal Upadhaya S/o Shri Jagannath Ji Upadhaya,
Aged About 65 Years, R/o Brahmpuri Mohalla, Santpur,
Abu Road, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Group-3) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, State Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wild Life), Jodhpur.
5. Assistant Conservator Of Forest (Wild Life), Mount Abu,
District Sirohi.
6. Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Wild Life), Mount Abu,
District Sirohi.
7. The District Collector, Sirohi.
8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
9. The Tehsildar, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
10. The Gram Panchayat, Umrani, Village Danvav, Patwar
Halka Manpur, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi - Through
Its Sarpanch And Village Development Officer (Vdo).
11. Brahmakumari Sansthan, Shantivan, Talheti, Abu Road,
District Sirohi Through Its Secretary/authorised Officer.
12. Prajapita Brahmakumari Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya,
Brahmakumari, Pandav Bhawan, Mount Abu, District
Sirohi.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (2 of 12) [CW-4523/2026]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah, Mr. Mahipal Singh,
Mr. Mahesh Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh and
Mr. Daksh Sharma
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
assisted by Mr. Kinshuk Sharma
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate-AAG
assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, AAAG
Mr. Rakesh Sharma
Mr. Arpit Sharma for Mr. Nathu Singh
Rathore, AAG
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi
Mr. Vikas Rathi, through VC
Mr. Shreyansh Mardia for UIT and
Mr. Roop Kishore Rathi, through VC
Mr. Himmat Jagga
Ms. Tania Chugh
Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
Mr. D.S. Rathore
Mr. Jaswant Singh
Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Sunil Joshi
Mr. Abhishek Seervi
Ms. Jyoti Choudhary
Mr. Abhinav Jain
Mr. Divik Mathur
Mr. Kunal Upadhayay
Mr. Shailendra Gwala
Mr. Vivek Rathi
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
Mr. Gajendra Panwar
Mr. Akshay Tiwari
Ms. Bhawna Tiwari
Mr. Manish Tak
Mr. Vikash Rathi
Mr. Nitin Jain
Mr. Piyush Bhandari, AAAG
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment REPORTABLE 10/04/2026
1. The present Public Interest Litigation concerns allegations of illegal construction, excavation, encroachment, and environmental (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (3 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] damage caused by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, namely Brahma Kumaris Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as "the Sansthan"), within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Mount Abu. The area falls within and around the Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary, which is an ecologically sensitive region protected under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related notifications. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite repeated complaints, the concerned authorities have failed to prevent such unlawful activities.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sansthan has carried out construction and expansion over reserved forest land comprising Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 in Reserved Forest Block Abu No. 1, as well as Khasra Nos. 47, 106 and 109 of Village Danvav and Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 of Village Umarni, without obtaining the required permissions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
3. It is contended that such continued construction within the notified ESZ threatens the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu. The petitioners further submit that Respondent government authorities, have failed to take proper action and enforce environmental laws.
4. Therefore, the petitioners seek directions from this Court for removal of all illegal encroachments, restoration of the forest land and ecological balance of the area, and recovery of the cost of such restoration from the encroaching entities responsible for the damage.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6, i.e., the Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (4 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] submitted that Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 form part of notified forest land. However, it is clarified that at present no construction, possession, or encroachment of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 exists over the said Khasra numbers. It is submitted that certain encroachments which had earlier been raised were identified, the structures were sealed, and minor constructions were demolished. The land along with the existing structures has already been surrendered to the Forest Department. It is further submitted that Khasra Nos. 47, 106, 109, 200 and 201 are recorded as revenue land and do not form part of forest land.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Department, Respondent No.2, submitted that Khasra Nos. 47, 106, and 109 are duly recorded as revenue/khatedari land, and the necessary conversion and permissions for construction were granted by the competent authority, including the Gram Panchayat, prior to issuance of the new Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification dated 11.11.2020. It is stated that after declaration of the ESZ, no further permissions have been granted. So far as Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 are concerned, it is submitted that proceedings relating to demarcation and encroachment are underway, and unauthorized occupation shall be removed strictly in accordance with law. With regard to "Anand Sarovar," it is clarified that no talab, pond, or sarovar is recorded in the revenue records at the said location, and the same is merely the name of the campus established by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, i.e., Brahma Kumaris Institution, submitted that the allegations made in the writ petition are baseless, misleading, and motivated.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (5 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] It is submitted that the construction alleged over Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 had occurred due to an incorrect demarcation, and upon clarification, the said land along with the structures has already been surrendered to the Forest Department. The said structures have been sealed and are no longer under the possession or use of the answering respondents.
8. It is further submitted that so far as the revenue lands are concerned, all constructions have been raised only after obtaining due permissions from the competent authorities and prior to issuance of the ESZ Notification dated 11.11.2020. It is specifically contended that Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 do not belong to the answering respondents. It is also submitted that the institution is a non-profit spiritual organization engaged in meditation, yoga, and spiritual activities, and no commercial activity is being carried out on the premises. It is state that "Anand Sarovar," is only the name of the area on the premises developed and is not a lake, pond, or forest water body on site or in the revenue record. Therefore, the allegation of encroachment over a pond or lake is stated to be entirely false and without any factual basis.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that Petitioner No. 3, namely Jayantilal Upadhyay, is closely related to one Kantilal Upadhyay, who is stated to be a habitual litigant. It is pointed out that several litigations filed by the said person have previously been dismissed by Coordinate Benches of this Court with adverse observations, including imposition of costs, on the ground that such petitions were not bona fide and were filed with ulterior motives.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (6 of 12) [CW-4523/2026]
10. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is not a genuine public interest litigation concerning environmental protection, but is a motivated petition filed solely with the intention to harass the answering respondents by relying upon incorrect and incomplete facts. The respondents thus pray for dismissal of the present PIL.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.
12. Upon consideration of the replies filed by the Forest Department, Revenue Department, and Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, it emerges that Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 admittedly form part of forest land. However, the material on record reveals that the constructions raised thereon have already been surrendered to the Forest Department. The structures have been sealed and minor constructions have also been demolished. At present, no continuing possession or active encroachment of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 over the said forest land is shown to exist.
13. So far as Khasra Nos. 47, 106 and 109 are concerned, the Revenue Department has specifically clarified that the said lands are recorded as revenue/khatedari lands and the constructions thereon were raised after due conversion and permission granted by the competent authority, including the Gram Panchayat, prior to issuance of the ESZ Notification dated 11.11.2020. It has also been stated that after declaration of the ESZ, no fresh permissions have been granted.
14. With regard to "Anand Sarovar," the State authorities have clarified that no pond, talab, or sarovar is recorded in the revenue (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (7 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] records at the site and that the same is merely the name of the campus established by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12. Therefore, the allegation of encroachment over a water body is not borne out from the record.
15. As regards Khasra Nos. 200 and 201, proceedings concerning demarcation and encroachment are stated to be pending and the authorities have undertaken to remove any illegal occupation found therein in accordance with law.
16. In view of the above discussion and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, replies, and material placed on record, this Court finds that the principal allegations regarding large-scale illegal encroachment over forest land and unauthorized construction over revenue land by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 do not survive in the manner projected by the petitioners.
17. Thus, while this Court is not inclined to accept the allegations of continuing illegal encroachment in the broad manner projected by the petitioners, the proceedings have nevertheless brought to light the necessity of vigilant enforcement of environmental laws in the Mount Abu region. The Court is of the considered view that though the specific grievances raised in the present petition may substantially stand addressed, the larger issue concerning protection of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, prevention of unauthorized development, and preservation of the fragile ecological balance of Mount Abu continues to remain a matter of serious public importance requiring constant institutional attention.
18. It is noteworthy that Mount Abu, being the only hill station in the State of Rajasthan, occupies a unique ecological and environmental position and has repeatedly been the subject (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:08 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (8 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] matter of judicial scrutiny in matters concerning environmental degradation, illegal encroachments, soil erosion, depletion of forest cover and unregulated developmental activities. The region is ecologically fragile and environmentally sensitive, containing rare species of flora and fauna, significant geological formations, natural water recharge zones, forest ecosystems, and heritage structures of both natural and cultural importance.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with environmental concerns relating specifically to Mount Abu in Pragnesh Shah v. Arun Kumar Sharma, reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 762 emphasized the necessity of strict environmental regulation and sustainable developmental planning in the region. The Apex Court recognized that the purpose of declaring Mount Abu as an Eco-Sensitive Zone was to prevent irreversible environmental degradation and to ensure that future development occurs only in consonance with ecological preservation. The Court particularly highlighted the significance of the Zonal Master Plan and observed that environmental governance in Mount Abu must be guided by the precautionary principle and the doctrine of sustainable development.
20. The Supreme Court observed as under :-
"Mount Abu was identified as an ESZ under the ESZ Notification because environmental degradation of its fragile ecosystem was a real possibility if immediate action was not taken. Significant soil erosion, air and water pollution had already occurred due to developmental activities. The ecological importance of Mount Abu lies in its rare flora and fauna, natural heritage such as Nakki Lake, and heritage structures such as Dilwara Temples.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:09 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (9 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] The ESZ Notification required preparation of the Zonal Master Plan 2030 to ensure that future developmental activity is planned while accounting for environmental degradation, following the precautionary principle. The Notification is an enforceable charter for preservation of the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu, and every authority is duty bound to comply with it."
21. Mount Abu area was initially notified as an Eco-Sensitive Zone by the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide Notification dated 25.06.2009. Thereafter, the Government of India, vide Notification dated 11.11.2020, issued a fresh notification specifically declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone around Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary and prescribing regulatory as well as prohibited activities within the said zone. The object of such notification is to create a protective buffer around the Wildlife Sanctuary so as to minimize negative environmental impacts caused by developmental and commercial activities and to preserve the fragile ecological balance of the area.
22. Pursuant to the said notifications, the Zonal Master Plan 2030 has been prepared and is presently in force. The Zonal Master Plan serves as the principal planning instrument for regulating land use, construction activity, environmental safeguards, waste management, tourism control, and ecological conservation within the notified zone. Once such statutory planning framework is in force, it becomes the bounden duty of the State Government, local authorities, forest department, revenue authorities, urban development authorities, and all other concerned agencies to ensure strict compliance thereof.
23. This Court reiterates that no construction, or change in land or any action contrary to the provisions of the ESZ Notifications (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:09 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (10 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] and the Zonal Master Plan can be permitted under any circumstance. Environmental protection cannot be sacrificed in the name of development, and any person found violating the statutory scheme must be dealt with promptly and strictly in accordance with law.
24. This Court is of the considered opinion that although the present allegations may not warrant further coercive action in view of the observations made above, the necessity for continuous monitoring of the Eco-Sensitive Zone is of paramount importance. Environmental governance, particularly in an ecologically fragile region such as Mount Abu, cannot depend merely upon sporadic litigation initiated by private individuals, it requires sustained institutional vigilance and coordinated administrative action.
25. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a Vigilance Committee has already been constituted by the Government for monitoring compliance within the Eco-Sensitive Zone. The said Committee must function effectively and not merely exist on paper. The Committee shall regularly monitor complaints relating to illegal construction, unauthorized land use, encroachments upon forest land, tree cutting, hill cutting, waste disposal violations, pollution of water bodies, and any other activity adversely affecting the ecology of Mount Abu.
26. The concerned departments, including the Forest Department, Revenue Department, Municipal Authorities, Pollution Control Authorities, and local administrative bodies, shall maintain close coordination with the Vigilance Committee and shall ensure prompt verification of complaints received. If any violation is found, immediate remedial and coercive steps shall be taken (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:09 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (11 of 12) [CW-4523/2026] strictly in accordance with law, including sealing, demolition, restoration of ESZ, prosecution, imposition of environmental compensation, and initiation of other statutory proceedings wherever required. Mere issuance of notices without effective enforcement shall not satisfy the mandate of law.
27. The authorities are further directed to maintain transparency in the process by preserving proper records of complaints received, inspections conducted, action taken reports, and status of pending proceedings so that environmental compliance is not reduced to a mere formality.
28. It is also necessary to emphasize that preservation of the environment is not merely a statutory obligation of the State but a constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. The right to live in a clean, pollution- free, and ecologically balanced environment forms an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Simultaneously, Article 48A casts a duty upon the State to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty upon every citizen to safeguard natural resources and ecological heritage.
29. Keeping these constitutional principles in view, this Court directs that strict compliance of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 shall be ensured throughout the Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone. Illegal dumping of solid waste, plastic pollution, discharge of untreated waste into forest areas or water bodies, and unregulated tourism- related waste generation are serious threats to the ecological sustainability of Mount Abu and must be dealt with firmly.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:09 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:18916-DB] (12 of 12) [CW-4523/2026]
30. The State authorities shall undertake effective waste management measures including proper collection, segregation, transportation, recycling, and scientific disposal of municipal and plastic waste. Special attention shall be given to tourist zones, forest fringes, water bodies, hill slopes, and ecologically sensitive pockets where waste accumulation causes long-term environmental damage. Public awareness measures shall also be undertaken to ensure active citizen participation in preserving the natural environment.
31. The object of these directions is not merely regulatory compliance, but the preservation of Mount Abu as a unique ecological heritage for present and future generations. The fragile ecosystem of the region must be protected with seriousness, consistency, and a sense of constitutional responsibility.
32. In view of the foregoing discussion and the directions issued hereinabove, the present Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 1 - ms rathore (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 12:55:09 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)