1. Challenge to order converting charagah (pasture) land and a Gair Mumkin Pokhar (water body) into a public way granting ingress and egress to a mining lease. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANUROOP SINGHI, J.
Dharam Singh S/o Shri Bhajora Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4626 of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Important Points
Land recorded as a water body cannot be converted into a road or used for constructing culverts if evidence confirms that water accumulates or flows through the site, especially during monsoons, as this prevents obstruction of natural drainage and preserves environmental protections.
Subject
Revenue Law - Land Conversion
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 142; Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 - Rule 7 - Conversion of pasture (charagah) and water body (Gair Mumkin Pokhar) land - Grant of right of way for mining lease - Construction of culvert on water body - Impermissibility of converting land where water accumulation/flow is established - Non-compliance with statutory provisions for conversion of pasture land. (Paras 12, 31, 32)
(B) Water Bodies - Protection - If revenue records denote land as a water body and physical findings corroborate the flow or collection of water, especially during monsoon, such land cannot be converted for other purposes, including the construction of roads or culverts, as it would obstruct natural water flow. (Paras 30-32)
(C) Locus Standi - In a writ petition, if the court has previously permitted a party to file objections and participate in proceedings, that party cannot be subsequently denied standing to challenge an order passed in those proceedings. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
An order was challenged which directed the conversion of specific pasture lands and land recorded as a water body into a public way to provide ingress and egress to a mining lease. The order also permitted the construction of a culvert on the water body land to ensure that the flow of water was not obstructed. An expert committee report had indicated that water collects on the site during the monsoon season.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order permitting the construction of a culvert was self-contradictory; the requirement for a culvert to "avoid obstruction" confirms that constructing a road would indeed obstruct the natural flow of water. Since water actually collects on the site during the monsoon, the site remains a water body in reality, rendering its conversion impermissible. Additionally, the mandatory statutory procedures for the conversion of pasture land were not proven to have been complied with.
Issues: Whether pasture land can be converted into a public way for mining access and whether a culvert or bridge can be constructed on land recorded as a water body where water accumulation is established.
Ratio Decidendi: Land recorded as a water body cannot be converted or used for construction if evidence confirms that the natural flow or storage of water exists on-site, as such actions would bypass environmental protections and obstruct natural drainage. Furthermore, the conversion of pasture land must strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 142 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the associated rules.
Result: Operation of the impugned order stayed; respondents directed not to convert or alter the status of the subject lands.
(B) Water Bodies - Protection - If revenue records denote land as a water body and physical findings corroborate the flow or collection of water, especially during monsoon, such land cannot be converted for other purposes, including the construction of roads or culverts, as it would obstruct natural water flow. (Paras 30-32)
(C) Locus Standi - In a writ petition, if the court has previously permitted a party to file objections and participate in proceedings, that party cannot be subsequently denied standing to challenge an order passed in those proceedings. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
An order was challenged which directed the conversion of specific pasture lands and land recorded as a water body into a public way to provide ingress and egress to a mining lease. The order also permitted the construction of a culvert on the water body land to ensure that the flow of water was not obstructed. An expert committee report had indicated that water collects on the site during the monsoon season.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order permitting the construction of a culvert was self-contradictory; the requirement for a culvert to "avoid obstruction" confirms that constructing a road would indeed obstruct the natural flow of water. Since water actually collects on the site during the monsoon, the site remains a water body in reality, rendering its conversion impermissible. Additionally, the mandatory statutory procedures for the conversion of pasture land were not proven to have been complied with.
Issues: Whether pasture land can be converted into a public way for mining access and whether a culvert or bridge can be constructed on land recorded as a water body where water accumulation is established.
Ratio Decidendi: Land recorded as a water body cannot be converted or used for construction if evidence confirms that the natural flow or storage of water exists on-site, as such actions would bypass environmental protections and obstruct natural drainage. Furthermore, the conversion of pasture land must strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 142 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the associated rules.
Result: Operation of the impugned order stayed; respondents directed not to convert or alter the status of the subject lands.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land use and classification
- charagah (pasture) land (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- gair mumkin pokhar (water body) (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- easements and rights of way (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- environmental protection of water bodies (Para 30, 31, 32)
-
land use and classification
- practice and procedure
-
administrative law
- statutory compliance (Para 12)
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Avi Sharma
For the Respondents: R.K. Agarwal, Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Shubham Kumar Sharma, Priyansha Gupta
For the Appellants : Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Avi Sharma
For the Respondents: R.K. Agarwal, Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Shubham Kumar Sharma, Priyansha Gupta
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: conversion of protected lands is illegal without statutory compliance. Respondent: conversion is based on expert committee report and should not be interfered with. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. The impugned order's findings on the water body are self-contradictory; the expert committee and the order acknowledge water collection during monsoon. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
4. A Gair Mumkin Pokhar (water body) cannot be converted or used for constructing a culvert/bridge if it confirms water collection, as it obstructs natural flow. (Para 31 , 32 )
5. Stay of the impugned order; respondents restrained from converting or altering the status of the specified khasra numbers. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
6. Can a charagah (pasture) land be converted for a right of way without compliance with the Rajasthan Tenancy Act?
No, the statutory procedure under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and its Rules must be complied with for such conversion. (Para 12 )
7. Can a Gair Mumkin Pokhar (water body) be used for constructing a bridge or road if water flows and collects there?
No, such construction cannot be permitted as it would obstruct the natural flow and storage of water, violating legal principles protecting water bodies. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
8. What is the legal significance of an expert committee's finding that a water body collects water during monsoon?
Such a finding confirms the existence of a water body and prohibits any construction that would obstruct water flow or storage, despite revenue records. (Para 32 )
9. Does the petitioner (Sarpanch) have locus standi to challenge the order granting a right of way?
Yes, as the court had previously permitted the petitioner to participate and file objections, the challenge cannot be rejected on locus grounds. (Para 34 )
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure-14) passed by Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, vide which directions have been issued to convert the charagah (pasture) land admeasuring 1210 sq. mtrs. out of 3.16 hectare of khasra No. 925 and land admeasuring 3634 sq. mtrs. out of 3.13 hectare of khasra No.927, total being 4844 sq. mtrs. situated at village Bhonda, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur as public way for being used as a right of way and to construct a ^^iqfy;k** (culvert/bridge) on khasra No.926 which is recorded as a ‘Gair Mumkin Pokhar’ (Water Body) for granting ingress and egress to the Mining Lease No.3/93 of the respondent No.6.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that on the application filed by the petitioner before the Office of Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur, seeking grant of ingress and egress to the Mining Lease No.3/93, vide order dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure-6) a proposal was forwarded by the said Office to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for granting access to the respondent No.6 to its mining lease through khasra Nos.925, 926 and 927, the operative part of which reads as under:-
3. Subsequent to the passing of the said order, as no concrete action was taken by the respondents, a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3696/2025 was filed by the respondent No.6 which came to be decided by this Court vide its order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-2), vide which the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department was directed to take a final decision on the recommendation made by the District Collector, Bharatpur. The operative portion of the order dated 21.05.2025 reads as under:-
“7. Looking to the controversy involved in the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing directions to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to take a final decision on the recommendation made by the District Collector, Bharatpur vide letter dated 01.01.2025 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
8. The applicant would be at liberty to submit his objections and it is expected from the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to consider the objections raised by the applicant and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of 15 days from today.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
10. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the matter in a particular way. He would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.”
4. Subsequent to the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Court, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, vide its order dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-9) rejected the proposal dated 01.01.2025 primarily on the ground that khasra Nos.925 and 927 are ‘charagah’ (pasture) land and khasra No.926 is ‘Gair Mumkin Pokhar’ (Water Body). Due reference was also given to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by this Court, applicable provisions of law and legal opinion sought by the Department.
5. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 again approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10252/2025 which came to be decided vide order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure-4), wherein following directions were issued:-
“8. Various versions and cross-versions have been made with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.926 that it is a ‘Gair Mumkin Pokhar’ and it was recorded as ‘Nari’ (kind of river) in the revenue record, hence, the same cannot be allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of a way. As per the petitioner, there exists no ‘Pokhar’ or ‘Nari’ on the subject land, wh
