Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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