Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors. Pays/Territoire Inde Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jul 25, 2001 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Supreme Court of India Siège de la cour New Delhi Juge Quadri, S.Phukan, S. Numéro de référence AIR 2001 SC 3215, JT 2001 (6) SC 88, 2001 (4) SCALE 670 Langue Anglais Sujet Eau, Terre et sols Mot clé Droit constitutionnel Zones humides Régime foncier Planification territoriale Propriété étrangère Résumé The present dispute relates to the allotment of plot of land to an extent of 15 biswas of the pond area in the village Ugapur, Talluka Asnao. On February 25, 1999 the Additional collector cancelled the allotment in question made in favour of the respondents, and cancelation was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Challenging the correctness of the order of the Divisional Commissioner the respondents filed Writ Petition No 26572 of 1999 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which by the impugned order partly allowed the Writ Petition by confirming the allotment in respect of 10 biswas and cancelling in respect of biswas, which led to filing of the present appeal. The appellant vehemently contends that the power of allotment of the land is available in respect of added site and not in respect of a pond which is a public utility and meant for public use; that no part of it could have been allotted in favour of any person, much less in favour of respondents who do not fall in the specified categories of the beneficiaries under the U.P. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rules. The question that arises for consideration is whether the allotted land forms part of pond (Talab) and if so, can it be allotted under Section 122C (1) of the Act. From a combined reading of the provisions of the Act it is plain that the subject matter of allotment of house sites, is lands referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) and not tanks, ponds private ferries, water channels, pathways referred to in clause (vi ) of sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Act. There is concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in rainy season. In such a case no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes. The Court held that ‘the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, mountains etc. are natures bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Governments, including the Revenue Authorities having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to developing the same which would, on one hand ,have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large..For the afore-mentioned reasons, the order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional Collector dated February 25, 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on March 12, 1999.restored. Consequently, respondents shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, and the State shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Texte intégral COU-156224.pdf Site web indiankanoon.org