Rajasthan High Court Questions BT Road Built Over Luni River Bed, Seeks Pillar-Based Alternative
Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejects the State's public-utility defence for a road laid on land recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, asking for an expert feasibility report on elevating the structure.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, has recorded a prima facie finding that a BT road connecting Chhatriyo Ka Morcha to the Mega Highway near Balotra has been constructed over land recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, part of the Luni River bed. The order of 26 May 2026 came in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Pradushan Nivaran And Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti and two individuals, who alleged that the road was laid through Khasra No. 1894/1741 and adjoining khasras instead of the existing Gair Mumkin Katan Raasta envisaged in the master plan. The Bench declined to accept the State's argument that public utility alone could justify building on river land, and directed the Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit examining the feasibility of an elevated, pillar-supported alternative.
The Petition Before the Jodhpur Bench
The petitioners approached the High Court after making representations to local authorities against the manner in which the road connecting Balotra to the Mega Highway was being built. Their case, argued by Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore with Mr. Sumer Lal, was that the road ought to have followed the Gair Mumkin Katan Raasta shown in the master plan, but was instead being laid directly through the river bed comprised in Khasra No. 1894/1741 and adjoining khasras.
To support this, counsel relied on Annexure A/1, a joint demarcation report submitted by the District Collector, Balotra and the Tehsildar, Pachpadra. The report set out two separate methodologies used to fix survey points and measure the site, and concluded, after comparing revenue records with the position on the ground, that the boundaries of several khasras — including the railway line and the Balotra-Samdari road — had shifted northward from their recorded position due to dense habitation nearby. The Bench held that a plain reading of this conclusion prima facie indicated that the road had indeed been constructed over land recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi.
State's Public-Utility Defence and the Court's Response
Appearing for the State, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, argued that the road was a public utility project meant to improve transportation and connectivity, and that infrastructure of this kind inevitably requires crossing river stretches. He submitted that the use of the land could not be viewed in isolation from the larger public interest the project served.
The Bench was “unable to accept the contention that” public utility by itself could justify appropriating land recorded as a river bed. It held that river land is a distinct environmental and ecological resource whose character cannot be altered merely because a project serves a public purpose. Where infrastructure must cross a river stretch, the Court said, the appropriate course is to adopt engineering solutions such as bridges, elevated corridors or pillar-supported structures that preserve the river bed's surface rather than build directly upon it.
The Court flagged a wider risk in accepting the State's position: if authorities could routinely use river land because it is readily available and needs no acquisition, this would let them avoid the financial, legal and administrative obligations tied to planned development and lawful land acquisition. It said such a course “cannot be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law.”
Seasonal Rivers and the Character of Gair Mumkin Nadi Land
The Bench addressed an argument that appears to have influenced the project's design — that a dry or seasonal riverbed is effectively vacant land. It rejected this framing for Rajasthan's geography specifically. Unlike perennial rivers elsewhere, the Court noted, many rivers in the State, including the Luni, are seasonal and carry water only during particular periods. The absence of visible water for long stretches, it held, does not change the legal or ecological character of the land. These channels perform a vital function during monsoon periods by carrying flood waters, recharging groundwater and maintaining ecological balance in an otherwise arid region.
The Court observed that if dry riverbeds are treated as available land for public projects, there is a real risk that such stretches would gradually disappear from revenue records as well as on the ground, exposing future generations to flooding, disrupted drainage and depleted groundwater. It framed this as inconsistent with the State's constitutional obligation to protect natural resources for present and future generations.
The Bench also distinguished the present construction from conventional river-crossing infrastructure. Bridges, elevated corridors and pillar-supported structures, it said, are designed to preserve the underlying water body and allow natural flow without obstruction. A permanent roadway built directly on the surface of land recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, by contrast, cannot be equated with such structures.
Prima Facie Finding on Administrative Convenience
Going further, the Bench recorded its prima facie opinion that the road appeared to have been built on the river bed primarily for administrative convenience — to avoid the obligation of constructing a lawfully planned roadway through due acquisition proceedings and at the attendant cost. It held that a project cannot be justified as public utility if, in the process, the revenue classification of the land as Gair Mumkin Nadi is rendered meaningless. Accepting such a proposition, the Court said, would let public authorities disregard land records whenever convenient. The demarcation charts and reports on record were found to prima facie support this view.
State's Undertaking to Examine an Elevated Alternative
In response to the Court's observations, Mr. Panwar submitted that he would consult technical experts to examine the feasibility of elevating the road on pillars, or adopting other engineering measures, so that the river land remains unobstructed while public connectivity is maintained. The Bench described this proposal as bona fide and deserving of consideration by the competent authorities in accordance with law.
The Court also directed that paragraph 6 of the Court Commissioner's report, filed by Mr. Divik Mathur, be specifically addressed. That paragraph describes the road as a two-kilometre pakka damar stretch running largely straight except for a sharp cut between points J and K, connecting the Mega Highway to Chhatriyo Ka Morcha near the Naya Bus Stand. The Bench asked whether this sharp curve could be rectified to avoid traffic hazards and ensure public safety.
Order
The Bench directed the Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit setting out clearly how the authorities propose to address the concerns raised, accompanied by an expert report examining the technical feasibility of elevating the road