Rajasthan HC Bars Civil and Revenue Courts from Hearing Suits on Catchment Areas, Orders Immediate Removal of Encroachments on Nalas

A Rajasthan HC Division Bench directed the State to immediately clear encroachments on nalas and catchment areas feeding the Ramgarh lake, Kukas dam, and Nevta dam, ahead of monsoon, and barred civil and revenue courts from entertaining any suits relating to these areas without the court's permission.

On 2 July 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma, passed a sweeping order in Govindram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. directing the State to remove all encroachments on nalas and catchment areas with immediate effect. The petition specifically concerned obstructions in village Khatwada, Tehsil Sanganer, which impede water flow towards the Nevta dam. The bench extended the order to cover the entire catchment areas of the Ramgarh lake and the Kukas dam. In an unusual step, it barred both civil courts and revenue courts from entertaining any suits relating to those catchment areas without prior permission of the High Court.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Petitioner Govindram, represented by Mr. Siddhartha Jain Mutha, placed before the court the alleged encroachments in village Khatwada in Tehsil Sanganer. The case concerned pakka boundary walls constructed by land owners on agricultural land and the filling up of nalas, both of which have stopped the natural flow of water towards the Nevta dam.

The State of Rajasthan was represented by Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General, along with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Mr. Aatish Jain, and Mr. Gaurav Jain.

The bench observed that it had already taken judicial notice, in earlier proceedings, of excessive constructions in catchment areas that had stopped water flow to the Ramgarh lake and the Kukas dam. The present petition brought into focus a third water body — the Nevta dam — fed by the nalas and catchment areas passing through Khatwada.

Why Water Bodies in a Desert State Carry Particular Weight

The bench set out a specific concern about Rajasthan’s geography. Water bodies, the court noted, are the only source of recharging underground water in the desert area of the State. Any obstruction to the flow of surface water during the rainy season directly affects groundwater levels, making the protection of nalas and catchment areas a matter of public importance beyond individual land disputes.

The court observed that the typical pattern is for persons to purchase agricultural land and then construct pakka boundary walls across or along nalas, blocking the natural watercourse. While acknowledging that demarcation of agricultural land is necessary to prevent friction among landowners, the bench said demarcation could be achieved by means other than solid boundary walls. Where a boundary wall was genuinely required, the court stated, there must be adequate openings at the lower side so that water can continue to flow.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench identified two categories of obstruction present in the case. The first was pakka boundary walls that physically blocked water flow. The second was the filling up of nalas and natural waterways by land owners, disturbing the water’s natural course.

The court treated the obligation to keep catchment areas clear as resting on two separate parties: the State, which must act to remove obstructions wherever found, and individual citizens, who carry a responsibility not to stop catchment areas by construction. The framing moved the issue beyond a dispute between the petitioner and specific encroachers, converting it into a State-wide obligation tied to the monsoon season.

On the question of land owners who voluntarily cooperate, the bench offered a measured direction: if a concerned land owner himself provides access for the flow of water, the remaining part of his property shall not be disturbed. This conditional protection was built into the order to encourage voluntary compliance rather than purely coercive action.

The bar on civil and revenue courts was the bench’s mechanism to prevent litigation being used to stall or delay encroachment removal. By placing catchment area disputes under the High Court’s exclusive supervision, the bench ensured that no injunction or stay from a subordinate court could halt State action on the nalas. The encroachment removal, the court said, “shall not in any manner stop without permission of this Court.”

Directions Issued

The bench issued the following directions in its 2 July 2026 order:

• State authorities shall take immediate steps to remove obstructions on nalas and catchment areas, including all encroachments, and not only those described in the present petition.
• The order applies not merely to the Khatwada area but to the entire catchment areas of Ramgarh lake and Kukas dam.
• Civil courts are restrained from entertaining any civil suits relating to these catchment areas without permission of the High Court.
• The same restraint applies to revenue courts.
• Encroachment removal must be carried out immediately in view of the approaching monsoon season and shall not be stopped without the High Court’s permission.
• Land owners who themselves provide access for water flow shall have the remainder of their property left undisturbed.
• Notices already issued by State authorities regarding the requirement to open particular areas shall be published in newspapers, giving land owners an opportunity to voluntarily open the areas.
• The concerned Tehsildar shall issue notice to concerned land owners for this purpose, if not already done.

Outcome

The Division Bench listed the matter for a compliance report on 5 August 2026. The State is required to report on steps taken to remove encroachments from the catchment areas of Ramgarh lake, Kukas dam, and Nevta dam before that date. No encroachment removal exercise may be stopped pending that date without the High Court granting explicit permission.