In a petition challenging the proposed Dam on the ground that the water from the river is a source of livelihood for the villagers, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that Water is a natural resource that belongs to the state and not the villagers who use it or any other individual and additionally the steps for safeguarding the interest of the petitioners were already taken, therefore the petition was dismissed.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners were aggrieved by the actions of the respondents whereby a dam has been proposed to be constructed on Bagna nalla in Gram Panchayat, Bagi, Tehsil Shimla.
It has been contended by the petitioners that almost 90 to 95% of inhabitants of the nearby places would be affected by the construction of such a dam and they will lose their source of livelihood. Most of the people in the nearby villages are dependent on agriculture and it is their source of water supply.
Observations of the Court:
The Court first talked about the ownership of water sources and said that there is a misconception that water belongs to villagers who use it, but in reality, water is the property of the state and no individual has any right to claim it even if it is situated in his personal property. The Court then referred to the judgment by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388, according to which river is a public property and the state as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. The Supreme Court also talked about the Public Trust Doctrine, according to which certain resources have such great importance to the people that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The doctrine entrusts the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The court then referred to several judgments and concluded that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens and it is an obligation of both state and union governments to conserve them.
With regards to the rights of the petitioners to use the water, the court found that the respondents have taken adequate steps to safeguard their interest and the project in question is being undertaken for the benefit of the public at large and even the Gram Panchayat Dhamoon has already passed a resolution and issued a no objection certificate for the construction of the project. It was then pointed out that only four people have filed the instant petition and the same cannot be termed to be the voice of the people. And even then, the court noted that the interest of the villagers has been adequately safeguarded.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was dismissed as no merit was found and it was noted that the interest of the petitioners has been adequately safeguarded and protected while formulating and implementing the scheme for the construction of the dam.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar & Ors. V. State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh
Case No.: CWP No. 795 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ajay Thakur, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments