Environmental protection is a constitutional mandate requiring sustained institutional vigilance. State authorities must strictly enforce developmental master plans and environmental regulations in fragile ecosystems, guided by the precautionary principle, to ensure sustainable development and the preservation of natural heritage for future generations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Public Interest Litigation concerns allegations of illegal construction, excavation, encroachment, and environmental damage caused by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, namely Brahma Kumaris Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as “the Sansthan”), within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Mount Abu. The area falls within and around the Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary, which is an ecologically sensitive region protected under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related notifications. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite repeated complaints, the concerned authorities have failed to prevent such unlawful activities.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sansthan has carried out construction and expansion over reserved forest land comprising Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 in Reserved Forest Block Abu No. 1, as well as Khasra Nos. 47, 106 and 109 of Village Danvav and Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 of Village Umarni, without obtaining the required permissions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3. It is contended that such continued construction within the notified ESZ threatens the fragile ecosystem of Mount Abu. The petitioners further submit that Respondent government authorities, have failed to take proper action and enforce environmental laws.

4. Therefore, the petitioners seek directions from this Court for removal of all illegal encroachments, restoration of the forest land and ecological balance of the area, and recovery of the cost of such restoration from the encroaching entities responsible for the damage.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6, i.e., the Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, submitted that Khasra Nos. 412, 416 and 419 form part of notified forest land. However, it is clarified that at present no construction, possession, or encroachment of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 exists over the said Khasra numbers. It is submitted that certain encroachments which had earlier been raised were identified, the structures were sealed, and minor constructions were demolished. The land along with the existing structures has already been surrendered to the Forest Department. It is further submitted that Khasra Nos. 47, 106, 109, 200 and 201 are recorded as revenue land and do not form part of forest land.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Department, Respondent No.2, submitted that Khasra Nos. 47, 106, and 109 are duly recorded as revenue/khatedari land, and the necessary conversion and permissions for construction were granted by the competent authority, including the Gram Panchayat, prior to issuance of the new Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification dated 11.11.2020. It is stated that after declaration of the ESZ, no further permissions have been granted. So far as Khasra Nos. 200 and 201 are concerned, it is submitted that proceedings relating to demarcation and encroachment are underway, and unauthorized occupation shall be removed strictly in accordance with law. With regard to “Anand Sarovar” it is clarified that no talab, pond, or sarovar is recorded in the revenue records at the said location, and the same is merely the name of the campus established by Respondent Nos. 11 and 12.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 11 and 12, i.e., Brahma Kumaris I