Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long

04 April 2025 10:50 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Possession: Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction for Ensuring Free Flow of River  Nobody has the right to interfere with the free flow of rivers and water channels - On April 2, 2025, the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment dismissing two writ petitions (WP© No.17702 of 2024 and WP© No.20022 of 2024) filed by long-term occupants of river and puramboke lands in Pooppara, Idukki district. The Court, speaking through Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., categorically held that “no one has the right to interfere with the free flow of rivers and water channels because the river flowing in its natural way is entitled to be protected and preserved for the welfare and well-being of the people and future generations.” 
 
The Court refused to stall the eviction drive, emphasizing that the constructions by the petitioners obstructed the free flow of Panniyar river and posed a risk to the environment, public safety, and the rights of downstream users. 
 
 “The Government is the trustee of public lands and has a duty to act for the common good” 
 
The lead petitioner in WP© No.17702 of 2024, Aji Joseph, claimed entitlement to regularisation of occupation under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993, asserting possession since the pre-1977 period and citing licenses issued by the Panchayat for commercial use of the land. The other petitioners in WP© No.20022 of 2024 similarly claimed long-term possession and sought protection from eviction until rehabilitation schemes are framed. 
 
The Court, however, found that “none of the parcels of land are recorded to have been occupied and converted for non-cardamom cultivation prior to 1.1.1977,” which is a mandatory requirement for claiming regularisation under the 1993 Special Rules. The Court observed that “the Rock Puramboke land in unauthorized possession of the petitioner is only a meagre 56 square metres in extent,” and rejected the plea for assignment. 
 
Referring to established principles, the Court highlighted that rivers, being vital ecological assets, cannot be subjected to encroachments. Quoting from Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Bench observed, “the water bodies are required to be retained… the right to water as also quality life are envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 
 
Court notes dangers of obstruction to river and dismisses reliance on interim protection 
 
The petitioners heavily relied on an earlier interim order of the Supreme Court passed in SLP © 
No.17060 of 2024 granting status quo. However, the High Court pointed out that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court on January 28, 2025, thereby rendering the interim protection void. 
 
The Bench further recorded, “the Joint Inspection Team has concluded that all the constructions in River Puramboke are causing obstruction to free flow of water. As such, all the constructions are to be demolished in order to ensure free flow of water through Panniyar river and to avoid contamination.” The District Disaster Management Authority also found that the encroachments increased the risk of disasters, especially during the monsoon and upon release of water from the Anayirankal reservoir. 
Final Decision: Eviction Justified, Regularisation Rejected 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court unequivocally held that the petitioners failed to establish any legal right for regularisation or rehabilitation. The judgment concluded: 
 
“Nobody has the right to interfere with the free flow of rivers and water channels… carrying out constructions by encroaching river bed is an act interfering with the right of citizenry to enjoy the free flow of river through its natural bed and thereby to live peacefully without any danger or destruction caused by the calamities occurring due to such human intervention.” 
 
The eviction of the petitioners was declared legally valid, and the Court refused to grant any further relief. 
 
Date of Decision: April 2, 2025 

 

Latest Legal News