Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Encroachments and Degradation Threatening Udaipur's Lake Network
A vacation bench at Jodhpur invoked Article 226 jurisdiction after newspaper reports flagged encroachments on Rupsagar Talab, structural failures in Madar Canal, and commercial development near Fatehsagar Lake.
On 5 June 2026, a vacation bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Ms. Justice Rekha Borana, took suo motu cognisance of the deteriorating condition of lakes, canals and water bodies in Udaipur. The bench acted on three reports published in the Udaipur edition of Rajasthan Patrika on 25 May, 29 May and 31 May 2026, which collectively raised concerns about encroachments on lake beds, unresolved boundary disputes, recurring structural failures in canal walls, and proposed commercial development near ecologically sensitive water bodies. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the court directed the matter to be registered as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation, issued notices to eleven State and local authorities, imposed interim conservation directions, and appointed three advocates as amici curiae. The next date is 13 July 2026.
What the Newspaper Reports Disclosed
The bench examined three specific reports before proceeding. The first, published on 25 May 2026 under the headline “Khatre mein talab: UDA 20 saal baad bhi tay nahin kar saka Rupsagar ka peta,” reported that the Udaipur Development Authority had failed, even after twenty years of administrative proceedings, to determine the actual extent and boundaries of Rupsagar Talab. Continuous construction activity and competing land claims around the water body had raised concerns about the preservation of the lake's ecosystem and catchment area.
The second report, dated 29 May 2026, highlighted recurring structural failures in the walls of Madar Canal despite repeated repairs. The bench noted that these failures posed an imminent threat of flooding, accidents and danger to life ahead of the monsoon season. The third report, dated 31 May 2026, referred to a proposed night hub development in the vicinity of Fatehsagar Lake, raising questions about the interface between urban commercial activity and the ecological carrying capacity of the lake.
Reading the three reports together, the bench concluded that the issues were not isolated incidents at individual locations. They disclosed broader systemic concerns: encroachments on lake areas, unresolved boundary demarcations, degradation of water bodies, structural deficiencies in canal infrastructure, and developmental pressure on ecologically sensitive zones.
The Constitutional and Doctrinal Framework the Bench Applied
The bench grounded its intervention in the constitutional framework governing environmental protection. It referred to Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as encompassing the right to a clean and healthy environment. Article 48A places a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife. Article 51A(g) imposes a corresponding duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.
The bench also invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, stating that natural resources of vital public importance are held by the State as a trustee for the benefit of the public and future generations, and cannot be permitted to suffer degradation through inaction or unsustainable use.
The court observed that Udaipur's identity, economy, tourism potential and ecological stability are substantially dependent on its interconnected system of lakes, feeder channels, canals, catchment areas and associated water bodies. It noted that a disturbance in any one component of this hydrological system is likely to produce cascading effects on the ecological integrity of the entire lake network. The bench identified increasing urbanisation, unregulated development, encroachments, pollution, sewage discharge, alteration of natural drainage channels and inadequate maintenance of water infrastructure as the principal threats.
The Specific Lakes and Issues Placed Under Judicial Scrutiny
The bench identified thirteen named water bodies as forming an ecologically significant lake network requiring coordinated conservation: Pichola Lake, Fateh Sagar Lake, Swaroop Sagar Lake, Rang Sagar Lake, Roop Sagar Talab, Doodh Talai, Goverdhan Sagar Lake, Badi Lake (Jiyan Sagar), Udai Sagar Lake, Madar Lake, Bada Madar Lake, Chhota Madar Lake and Kumharia Talab, along with other connected water systems, feeder channels, wetlands and catchment areas.
The court summarised the issues under four heads. First, certain lakes face pressures from encroachments, unregulated development and uncertainty about their boundaries. Second, Roop Sagar Lake in particular has unresolved concerns about identification, demarcation and protection of its lake bed and catchment area. Third, developmental and commercial activities near ecologically sensitive lake areas have adversely affected groundwater recharge, water conservation, biodiversity and ecological sustainability. Fourth, recurring failures in canal infrastructure — specifically Madar Canal — have endangered public safety and environmental management.
Seven aspects were identified as deserving the court's consideration, ranging from identification and mapping of all water bodies, to the adequacy of anti-encroachment measures, the legality and environmental implications of developmental activities near lake areas, the structural condition of canal infrastructure, and the formulation of short-term, medium-term and long-term conservation measures.
Interim Directions Issued
Pending the filing of affidavits and status reports, the bench issued eight interim directions binding on the State Government and all concerned authorities.
No further encroachment, reclamation, filling, dumping, construction or alteration of the physical boundaries of any identified lake, water body, canal, feeder channel or catchment area is to be permitted except in accordance with law and after obtaining all requisite permissions. All thirteen named lakes and other interconnected water bodies are to be inspected, with reports submitted on their ecological condition, water quality, catchment condition, encroachment status and conservation requirements.
No untreated sewage, municipal waste, industrial effluents, construction debris or other pollutants are to be discharged into any lake, water body, canal or associated catchment area. A detailed examination of the existing boundaries, revenue records, demarcation proceedings and present status of Rupsagar Talab is to be conducted and a comprehensive report placed before the court. Status quo is to be maintained with regard to the existing physical extent and character of major lakes until further orders, except where restoration and conservation measures are being undertaken in accordance with law.
The State is also directed to place before the court details of all ongoing and proposed developmental, commercial or infrastructure projects in the immediate vicinity of Fatehsagar Lake, Rupsagar Talab and other major water bodies, along with details of environmental safeguards adopted. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board is separately directed to conduct water quality assessments of major lakes and submit a comprehensive report covering contamination levels, environmental concerns, remedial measures required and action taken against violators.
Respondents, Counsel and Amici Curiae
Eleven respondents were arrayed: the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary; the Principal Secretaries of the Departments of Environment, Urban Development and Housing, Water Resources, and Local Self Government; the Member Secretary of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board; the District Collector, Udaipur; the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur; the Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority; the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Udaipur; and the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Udaipur Circle.
The District Collector, Udaipur, was specifically directed to coordinate with all concerned departments, collect district-wise information required under the order, and place a consolidated status report before the court.
Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General Mr. Rajesh Panwar, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, along with Additional Advocates General Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit and Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi for the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Mr. Deelip Kawadia for the Udaipur Development Authority, and Government Counsel Mr. P.S. Chundawat were directed to obtain instructions from their respective respondents and update the court on immediate measures taken.
Three advocates were appointed as amici curiae to assist the court: Mr. Avin Chhangani, Mr. Shubham Ojha and Mr. Mudit Nagpal. The Registry was directed to furnish copies of the order and the newspaper reports to the amici curiae and all respondents for immediate compliance.
The three Rajasthan Patrika reports, together with the photographs accompanying them, were directed to be treated as part of the record.
Order
The matter has been registered as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, titled Suo Motu: In Re: Protection and Conservation of Lakes and Water Bodies in Udaipur. Notices have been issued to all eleven respondents, who are required to file detailed affidavits and status reports covering the full range of aspects specified in the order. The matter is listed for hearing on 13 July 2026.