ORDER :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. By this PIL, the petitioner raises an issue with respect to a water-body which is situated at village Sakti. The water body is stated to be situated over government pond more popularly known as Gaangat Dabri Talab.

2. The petitioner made a complaint to the Collector, Dist. Janjgir that the water-body known as Gaangat Dabri Talab is being commonly and regularly used by large number of people. That apart, due to availability of water in the said pond, the ground water level in the area always sufficiently remains at reasonable level at the residential areas situated around the pond. The complaint further states that the people regularly use the water of said pond for drinking and other regular activities of washing and bathing also. However, ignoring the large public utility of pond, the Chief Municipal Officer Sakti for the purpose of providing personal gains, issued “No Objection” to respondent no.6 Anand Agrawal, to build a bridge/culvert on the said pond and as soon as the certificate was issued, respondent no.6 started raising construction by encroaching the pond thereby the surface area of water body i.e., pond is being reduced because of widening activities by dropping dust, sand, earth etc. in the pond area as such the capacity of water filling in the said pond will be reduced. The petitioner has alleged that the pond has been reduced from its original area by way of such encroachment. The complaint having been made, the Tahsildar Sakti District Janjgir opened a proceeding on 04.12.2020 and ordered for spot inspection by a team. Prima facie on inspection of revenue records, it was found that the pond is situated over Khasra No.1153 area 0.178 hectares and towards west 0.30 jarib CC road and drain are constructed. The Panchnama which is filed as Annexure P-5 along with site map would show that a new bank of 0.15 Jarib width and 1.50 jarib length in size was constructed by filling with soil towards north-south of water body. Against that order, respondent no.7 Vishnu Dayal filed a revision and an interim order was passed thereby the order of removal of encroachment dated 12.1.2021 came to a standstill. Against that order, the petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that the encroachment on the water body cannot be allowed and it should be restored to its original area.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2011 SC 1123) and Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti Vs. Lakh Singh (2001 AIR SCW 3769 to submit that certain direction was issued to all the State Governments to preserve the water bodies and prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants from public lands.

4. Learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 would submit that subsequently the order dated 12.01.2021 has been vacated by order dated 19.02.2021. Therefore, the purpose of this petition stands served and no adjudication would be required. He placed copy of order dated 19.02.2021 before this Court.

5. Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that that they would act in accordance with the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Mr. Vivek Agrawal, counsel for respondent no.5 would submit that on inspection it was found that encroachment over the pond area has been made by filling earth and thereby the area was reduced, for which, separate reports were given to the Tahsildar.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, the land is recorded as pond in revenue records. A perusal of the documents would show that the pond for which the complaint was made is situated over Kh.No.1153 and some part of Kh. No.1154. According to Panchnama, over the part of Khasra, respondent no.6 has filled the part of pond area with earth and tried to raise certain construction of road.

8. With respect to preservation of water body, the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC : AIR 2011 S