Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court allowed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed to protect and restore a village pond located in Ghorasahan, East Champaran district. The petitioners alleged that the pond, a crucial community water resource, was being encroached upon and converted into a commercial space by the local Zila Parishad, with shops being built within and around the pond area.

The Court was informed through photographs and affidavits that over 75% of the pond had already been dried using water pumps and that construction of shops was ongoing, despite an earlier restraint order passed by the Court. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB), upon inspection, confirmed that construction was taking place not just near the pond but even within its bed. The Board also noted that the water had become unfit for domestic or aquatic use due to pollution and solid waste dumping.

The Zila Parishad claimed that construction was taking place only on barren land to increase revenue. However, both the Circle Officer and BSPCB admitted that encroachments existed within the pond area, and the Circle Officer cited a 2016 government directive that mandates protection and revival of water bodies.

The High Court emphasized the importance of water bodies like ponds for ecological balance, water conservation, and public use. It cited several landmark Supreme Court judgments that highlight the government’s duty under Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 48A (environmental protection), and Article 51A(g) (citizen’s duty to protect the environment). Among the cases referred were:

• Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 715
• M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2009) 5 SCC 507

The Court further relied on the “Public Trust Doctrine,” which holds the state accountable as a trustee of natural resources like ponds and lakes.

Given the overwhelming evidence, the Court directed the District Magistrate and Zila Parishad of East Champaran to:

• Immediately stop all construction in and around the pond.
• Remove the ongoing and completed constructions within four weeks.
• Restore the pond to its original state.
• Ensure no further encroachments or water drainage occur.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling is a landmark in the preservation of natural water bodies in Bihar. It underscores the legal and constitutional responsibility of local bodies and state agencies to conserve public water resources. The judgment sets a strong precedent for other districts facing similar encroachments on ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. It also affirms the power of PILs as an effective legal remedy to prevent environmental degradation and enforce accountability.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the Zila Parishad could construct shops in or around a public pond for revenue purposes?
  • No. The Court held that public water bodies cannot be used for commercial construction.
• Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief for restoration of the pond?
  • Yes. The Court allowed the writ petitions and ordered restoration and removal of encroachments.
• Did the authorities violate the Court’s interim order?
  • Yes. Construction continued despite the restraint order of 16.02.2018.
• What is the government’s duty towards ponds and similar natural resources?
  • To act as a trustee under the Public Trust Doctrine and to protect and maintain these for public benefit.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496
• M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes) v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715
• M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, (2009) 5 SCC 507
• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
• Shailesh R. Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 GLH 64.

Case Title

Abdul Salam & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (with Sanjeew Jayasawal v. State of Bihar & Ors.)

Case Number

CWJC No. 6345 of 2017 with CWJC No. 7861 of 2018

Citation(s)

2020 (1) PLJR 226

Coram and Names of Judges Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Mukesh R. Shah
Hon’ble Dr. Justice Ravi Ranjan

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar (for petitioner in CWJC 6345/2017)
• Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha (for petitioner in CWJC 7861/2018)
• Mr. Ajay, GA-5 (for the State)
• Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha (for the State)
• Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Binita Singh (for BSPCB)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNjM0NSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-h75tIxJir18=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.