JUDGMENT
V.S. Dave, J.
1. Petitioners who are resident of Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, have filed this writ petition in public interest as according to them they are interested in the preservation of public property and public utility places of village Diggi. Village Diggi is a place of pilgrim as the temple of Shri Kalyanraiji Maharaj is situated there where several hundred thousands devotees come every year. On particular day in the year about one hundred thousand (one lac) people from Jaipur alone go on foot as PAD YATRIES covering a distance of 85 kms. and similarly several thousand people from other places also. There is also a yearly fair known as ‘JHULON KA MELA’. On this occasion also over a lac farmers and agriculturists attend the fair. There are 26 Dharamshalas in village Diggi which are used for staying of the pilgrims coming from various places. In village Diggi which falls under Grain Panchayat, there are three reservoirs, one of which is named as Megh Sagar dam maintained by Irrigation Department and two tanks which are known as Vijay Sagar and Shravan Sagar. Petitioner’s case as set up in para 5 of the writ petition is that the above three dams and tanks are hardly sufficient to catre to the needs of the residents of Diggi as lacs of pilgrims visit Diggi every year. Their case then is that Megh Sagar dam is principally used as a source of irrigation and fields of the residents and agriculturists of village Diggi are supplied water through two canals known as right canal and left canal. This dam has been shown in the village map in Khasra No. 1371 measuring 22 bighas 8 biswas and is six feet deep. Besides this the area of the boundary (Pal) is 3 bighas 15 biswas comprising khasra No. 1373 and 5 bighas 2 biswas in khasra No. 1378, 5 bighas 19 biswas of land in khasra No. 1379 has been shown as a Khandi (pit) which has been formed as a result of taking of the sand at the time of construction of the dam and here also the depth of the water is about six feet and canal also passes through this Khandi. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, it is contended, irrigate their land through this water which is supplied through khandi and similarly 66 other cultivators making a total of 69 irrigate their lands through the water supplied. Revenue record has been produced in support of the aforesaid pleadings. The case of the petitioners is that Irrigation Department has a budget of maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per year for this dam. Towards the South of this dam there is a public wharf (Ghat) ten feet in length and ten feet in width for use of pilgrims. Towards the West of the Ghat there is a cattle-pond also for drinking water of the animals. Two public Urinals have also been constructed and towards the South out of 26 Dharamshalas in the village one of them belonging to respondent No. 6 is already constructed on two bighas of land, out of which 1 1/2 bighas towards its South is already lying vacant.
2. Petitioners’ grievance is that non-petitioner No. 6 in 1991 entered into a conspiracy with-Tehsildar, Malpura, respondent No. 4, and decided to illegally grap certain portion of the land comprised in Megh Sagar dam. Tehsildar took an application from non-petitioner No. 6 for allotment of 5 bighas of land out of khasra No. 1371 which is Megh Sagar dam for construction of a Dharamshala and other public uses. The Tehsildar, Malpura addressed a letter to Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Diggi directing him to issue a No Objection Certificate for the allotment of the land in favour of non-petitioner No. 6, who following the directions issued No Objection Certificate. Tehsildar thereafter forwarded the papers to Collector, Tonk who, in turn, submitted the papers to the State Government and the State Government without inviting objections from the public and without issuing any public notice, vide order dated 25.1.1993 sanctioned the allotment of 3 bighas 4 biswas of land out of 22 bighas, 8 biswas of khasra No. 1371 of Megh Sagar dam to non- petitioner No. 6 for construction of water-hut, School premises, boarding houses and play-ground for the students. On receiving sanction from the State Government the Collector, Tonk vide his order, dated 19.4.1993 ordered the allotment vide Annexure 15. The petitioners’ grievance is against the order of the State Government, dated 25.1.1993 Annexure 14 sanctioning the land in favour of respondent No. 6 and the consequential’ of the order of the Collector, dated 19.4.1993 allotting the said land to respondent No. 6 and in this writ petition they have prayed for quashing both the orders mentioned above and seeking a further declaration that the land comprised in khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi, is not liable to be allotted for the purpose of construction of School Boarding House, Dharamshala and allied purposes.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land comprised in khasra No. 1371 is neither an agriculture land nor is unoccupied Government agriculture land and, therefore, the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of unoccupied Government Agriculture Land for Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and other buildings of public Utility) Rules, 1963 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Allotment Rules of 1963”) would not apply and the allotment of land to respondent No. 6 is therefore, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is then submitted that according to Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963 unoccupied Government agriculture land can only be allotted if Najool or Abadi land is not available with the whole village and even in that case the mandate of the Rule is that unoccupied Government land which is to be allotted should be in order of priority mentioned therein, i.e. firstly Banjar Land should be allotted. If there is no Banjar land, then unoccupied Barani land may be allotted. If the same is also not available, then unoccupied Govt. agriculture land may be allotted, but it is submitted’ that by no stretch of imagination tank bed land can be allotted under these rules. It is submitted that for finding out the meaning of the words ‘agriculture land’ reference will have to be made to the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) wherein under Section 5(2) agriculture denotes the cultivation of the field and includes horticuture cattle breeding, dairy forming and poultry farming. It is submitted hat in widers sense it may include land for pasture, Forestry, betel cultivation, Tea and Coffee cultivation, growth of trees, cultivation of indigo of green vegetables but by no means the bank bed. It is submitted that in all the revenue records this land has been shown as Gairmumkin Talab and it is also not denied by the respondents and, therefore, it is neither an agriculture land nor Abadi land so as to attract the provisions of the allotment Rules. It is then submitted that tank bed can be allotted only for the purpose of cultivation and that too under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank bed and lands for cultivation) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tank bed Rules’) which govern the land situated in the beds of tanks or rivers and the provisions of Allotment Rules of 1963 are not applicable to such land, yet the State Government has mis-applied the provisions and granted sanction for allotment of the said land. It is submitted that allotment of tank-bed without public notice is violative of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that if the public notice would have been issued the petitioners could have shown that in Tehsil Malpura 50 bighas 30 biswas Government land of the category of Banzar, Barani and Parat uncultivated is available which can be utilised for the construction of the school buildings, boarding houses, water-hut and allied purposes to non-petitioner No. 6. It is submitted that by curtailing 3 bighas 4 biswas of land of the tank-bed the storing capacity of the water would be reduced and it would be an irreparable loss to the residents of village Diggi as well as villagers of nearby Dhanies who are using the water of the tank for all purposes including irrigation. The petitioners’ case is that the land comprised in khasra Nos. 1371, 1379, 13S0, 1381, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1388, 1389, 1390 and 1392 remains submerged in water, while some of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1384, 1385 and 1386 emerges out of water near about Diwali and is allotted for cultivation under the tank- bed cultivation Rules and the allotment under Rules of Allotment Rules of 1963 is wholly illegal. It is submitted that the allotment is wholly malafide as the same has been done in order to appease the persons of Jat community and, therefore, also it should be canceled.
4. Lastly it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that illegal divertion of public property for private use by persons of a particular community being in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of 1961 and Allotment Rules of 1963 be immediately stopped and public interest should be saved.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 6, Jat Sewa Samiti, Malpura, submitted that the Stale Government has vast powers to make the allotment of the land of any category under the provisions of Allotment Rules of 1963. His submission is that there is no bar to allot the tank-bed land for the purposes of public utility. The only rider is that the allotment has to be made only after the previous approval of the State Government in Revenue Department for the purpose of allotment of land of any category. It is submitted that proviso to Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963 is very clear on the point wherein the words used by the legislature are, ‘If land of any other category is required, the previous approval of the State Government in Revenue Department shall be obtained. It is submitted that allotment Rules of 1963 have been enacted with a view to allot the land for public utility purposes and the petitioner’s contention is wholly untenable that they have come to the court for public interest. Public interest is better served in case a school is run for the children of the agriculturists and a Dharamshala is constructed for staying of the pilgrims coming to village Diggi for darshan of Shri Kalyanji Maharaj. It is submitted that it is not a case of any of the party that the portion of the land which had been allotted is one which is sub-merged with water and land is re-claimed for the purpose of construction of the building. The area in which this land has been allotted remains high and there are already buildings constructed on three sides of it and, therefore, to say that storing capacity of the water would be decreased in the tank, is a fanciful argument. It is further submitted that there is no relevance of Tank-bed Cultivation Rules of 1961 being applicable to the facts of the present case as the bare nomunclature of these rules suggests that they have been made for the purpose of allotment of the tank-bed land for the purposes of cultivation which has to be done in favour of the landless agriculturist. These are not the rules which have any bearing on allotment of portion of the land for the purpose of utilities as mentioned in allotment rules of 1963. It is then submitted that according to the petitioners’ own saying” there are as many as 28 Dharamshalas in village Diggi. It is mentioned that these Dharamshalas are constructed by different organisations and communities and it is not essential that one community had constructed only one Dharamshala. For instance there are at least 3-4 Dharamshalas constructed by Mali Samaj, Kumbawat Samaj, Thikana itself and various other communities and these Dharamshalas are on the banks of Megh Sagar, Vijay Sagar and Shravan Sagar tanks as they are the most suitable places where the pilgrims have the dip in holy water before going to Darshans and it is only at such place that there is utility of construction of public utility buildings. It is submitted that it is in the policy of the State to allot lands for the purposes of Schools, Hospitals, Dharamshalas, Cow-sheds etc. and between the year 1987-90 the State of Rajasthan allotted land measuring from 2 bighas to 14 bighas 4 biswas to various organisations in various towns of Rajasthan. It is then submitted that it is wrong assertion of the petitioners that Megh Sagar dam is used by the pilgrims and the residents of Diggi and, therefore, also there was no harm in allotting the land out of its khasra number. It is submitted that the petitioner’s contention is totally wrong that non-petitioner No. 6 has any other Dharamshala constructed on 2 bighas of land and that 1 1/2 bighas of land is lying vacant. This factual position has been categorically denied by respondent No. 6. It is submitted that charge of entering into a conspiracy for allotment of the land is totally false. It was a well meaning public interest for which the allotment of the land was prayed for and the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat and the Tehsildar with all sense of responsibility and looking to all the facts and circumstances and the fact that several hundred persons of the Jat community visit Diggi, recommended the allotment of the land which the State Government has accepted and consent given in pursuance of which the Collector issued the order of allotment. It is then submitted that it is not for the first time that the State Government has given consent for allotment of the tank-bed land for some public utility purposes. The State Government in village Aaktadi also gave 1 bighas 12 biswas of land from Gair Mumkin Talai for construction of Government Primary School and the order of such allotment has been placed on record as Annexure R 6/1. It is submitted that respondent No. 6 had applied for allotment of 5 bighas of land and the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat as well as the Tehsildar was for 5 bighas but the State Government has allotted only 3 bighas 4 biswas of land which clearly indicates that mind has been applied after looking to all the facts and circumstances and the map of the area so that neither the character of the dam is changed nor any loss is caused to the Irrigation Department or in any manner affects the supply of the water from the dam to the various cultivators which is through the Khandi. It is submitted that the petitioners have come with ulterior motives. They have made an united front against the persons of the Jat community fully knowing that they themselves have Dharamshalas of their community and when the fanners have decided to construct their own they are unnecessarily bringing the hurdles. All the rules have been complied and it is only after complying with the rules that the land has been allotted. The only flow which the petitioners could show is that the character of the land is being changed. But for that it is submitted that the same is permissible under the law and has been done in other cases also. There is no public interest involved and such person should not be permitted to encourage the public interest litigation.
6. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petition has been filed on 23.7.93 when the allotment order has been issued in April, 1993 and the respondents have already started construction of the school building and approximately Rs. 5,00,000.00 have already been spent in the construction of the school building therefore, to stop the construction at this stage if the writ is accepted it will cause irreparable loss to the farmers who have contributed for the construction of the school and the Dharamshala.
7. Learned Counsel for the State has justified the allotment order and has submitted that the same has been done in public interest and it is submitted that Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963 authorises the Collector for allotment of land mentioned therein. it is only that it can be done after the sanction of the State Government. It is submitted that allotment authority is a Collector and if Nazool and Abadi land is not available Collector himself can allot the land from unoccupied Government Agriculture land classified as Banzar or uncultivated Barani. It is only in case other than the aforesaid that land is to be allotted on previous approval of the State Government, is the condition precedent, therefore, in any other category even the land of the tank-bed is included. Therefore, the State Government has unfattered powers for allotment of any land. It is only to see that public interest is not harmed and on the contrary it should be advanced. The State Government did not agree to allot 5 bighas of kind as it found that allotment of 5 bighs of land will bring the submerged area also under construction and that would amount to re-claiming of the land and, therefore, allotted only 3 bighas 4 biswas of land which is on a corner where nearby other buildings have also been constructed. He thus supported the case of respondent No. 6.
8. I have given my due consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record placed before me.
9. The short question involved in this case is whether the State Government has right to allot the land from the tank-bed for the purposes of objects mentioned in allotment Rules of 1963 or the allotment can only be made in accordance with the Tank-bed Allotment Rules, 1961 for the purposes of cultivation? in other words a controversy has to be resolved in the case whether the land covered in tank-bed can exclusively be used for cultivation purposes only and in no circumstances it can be allotted for any of the purposes mentioned in Allotment Rules of 1963. There is no dispute on the facts in this case that khasra No. 1371 is the tank-bed. It can also not be disputed that several cultivators are getting water for irrigation purposes from this tank but the same is through khasra No. 1379 which is a low lying area at the end of the dam which had been created because of digging of the earth used for the purposes of construction of the dam and that the canals pass through this particular khasra only. I have gone through all the khasra girdavaries and khasra khatonies which have been placed on record by the parties. In all previous record I find that khasra Nos. 1371,. 1373, 1378 and 1379 make the complete dam, the area of which is 42 bighas and 26 biswas out of which khasra No. 1371 has been shown as Gair Mumkin Talab measuring 22 bighas 7 biswas, while khasra Nos. 1373 and 1378 are the Pal area which means the walls covering the dam. It appears from the village plan that on one end is also the West-ware, khasra number of which is not mentioned. However in parcha khatoni and 5 bighas 16 biswas is Gair mumkin Khandi. I also gathered it from the record that the total of it has been mentioned as one composite unit, namely, Nadi Pal Talab. From the record it is also borne out that khasra No. 1376 which is also on the bank has been shown as a Gair mumkin Dharamshala on 2 bighas and on khasra No. 1377 is Abadi. Unfortunately entire record shows the entry about allotment of land to respondent No. 6 but in no record it has been shown that the boundaries shall be appertaining to it other khasra numbers to indicate the exact site in the village plan. Even there is no document to show in which particular portion of khasra No. 1371 respondent No. 6 has been put into possession. The original order of the State Government wherein the land has been reduced from 5 bighas to 3 bighas 4 biswas, has also not been placed on record by any of the parties or even by the State Government to indicate as to which portion comprising 1 bighas 16 biswas of land has been cut out from the recommendations of the Gram Panchayat and the Tehsildar. This aspect I will be dealing with later on when I come to the Commissioner’s report called for by this Court. At this stage I will only deal with the legal position whether the State Government has power to sanction the allotment of the tank-bed? So far as Tank-bed Allotment Rules of 1961 are concerned, it may be stated at the outset that the land under these Rules can only be allotted for the purpose of bed cultivation. These Rules have absolutely no bearing in the facts of the present case. The only point which requires consideration in this case is whether Tank-bed can be allotted for the purposes mentioned in Allotment Rules of 1963 ?
10. Rules of 1963 were enacted with a view to lay down the conditions on which the Government was willing to make allotment of unoccupied Government agriculture Land for the construction of schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharamshalas and other buildings of public utility. This is also clear from the nomenclature of the rules.
11. Rule 1 of these Rules reads as under:
Class of land to be allotted-if nazool orabadi land is not available, occupied Government agriculture land classified as banzar or uncultivated barani may be allotted.
Provided that if any other category is required previous approval of the State Government in Revenue Department shall be obtained. Powers of allotment of land has been given in Rule 4 to the Collector. He has to obtain previous approval of the State Government under the proviso to Rule 1 only else he himself can allot the land.
12. Rule 3 of the Rules specifies the terms and conditions which reads as under:
Rule 3-Terms and conditions of allotment-
(i) The allotment shall be free of cost.
(a) the allotment shall be made for a period of 30 years, after the expiry of the period of 30 years, the Government may review the position and if the land is being used for the purpose, for which it was allotted and necessary for that purpose, the term may be renewed for on other term of 30 years. The lease deed shall be in Form 1.
(ii) When any building is constructed on the land and the land is thereby converted from agricultural land into non-agricultural land no premium or urban assessment shall be charged.
(iii) The land shall be used strictly for the purpose for which it is allotted; and the construction of the building for which the land is allotted shall be started within one year of allotment; Provided that land allotted for the construction of a school or college may also be used for an agricultural purpose connected with such school or college.
(iv) The land shall vest in the Government:
Provided that if the land is allotted to a Village Panchayat for the construction of a Panchayat ghar it shall vest in such Panchayat.
(V) The building constructed, or the institution started on such land shall be used for the benefit of the public and there shall be no malafide transfer to any member or members of the family of the donor to whom allotment is made.
(vi) The allottee shall give a written undertaking to abide by each and every one of the foregoing conditions.
(vii) In the event of any breach of the above conditions, the land shall revert to the State Government alongwith the construction thereon without any claim for compensation.
13. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses mentioned in Rule 3 shows that all land vests in the Government as per Clause 4 and the buildings can be constructed or the institutions started but those should be for the benefit of public interest. Clause 7 puts a rider that in case there is breach of the conditions the land shall revert to the Stale Government alongwith constructions thereon without any claim for any compensation. In substance neither permanent lease hold rights nor proprietary rights arc transferred by the State Government to the allottees of the land and that such allotment is for the purpose mentioned in the allotment order and if there is any breach there is a clause for getting the land vacated and obtaining the possession of the premises alongwith all constructions and buildings without even payment of any compensation. When such land is to be given it has to be given from the nazool or abadi land and if both are not available, then from the unoccupied Government agricultural land classified as banzar or uncultivated barani land.
14. Petitioners’ contention is that lot of banzar and barani land is available, has been negatived by non-petitioner No. 6. Non-petitioner No. 6 has placed on record a certificate from the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, Diggi dated 23rd August, 1993 wherein he has stated that at present no land for construction of Dharamshala or playing ground or hospital is available in abadi and like that the patvari of the circle has also issued an identical certificate. Still the question is whether in the proviso the State Government despite these certificates or land available, can allot the land other than mentioned in Clause 1 under the proviso. The words, ‘if the land of any other category is required’ clearly mention that the land mentioned in main Rule 1 is not covered under the proviso. It also appears that not only the non-availability is ground for invoking the provisions. But even if some land is required which may even be outside the purview of the main Rule still the Govt. has authority to allot the land. These words are of great significance and have wider importance. The proviso does not fatter the discretion of the State Government from allotting any type of land at any place for any of the purpose mentioned in the Rules. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the petitioners that Stage Government had no power to sanction the allotment of the land allotted to non-petitioner No. 6.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions the State Government has power to sanction the allotment of the land, but at the same time it is essential that land should not be allotted in a manner that it affects the rights of the public at large and may also cause inconvenience to great extent and the purpose of keeping the land as such is Trust rated. The law which enables the State Government to acquire/allot some particular land for any purpose whatsoever it has not to be done at the cost of the citizens and no law is ever enacted which can be used detrimental to the public interest, therefore, court has also to consider that aspect of the matter to see as to whether rules though empowers, have been used to the benefit of the party in whose favour the land is allotted but whether such allotment is not an abuse of the Rules.
16. I would be falling in my duty if I do not observe that though the State has power to allot the land yet more heavy duty is cast upon its functionaries to see that the allotment is done in a manner that it neither hurts the sentiments of the people nor is detrimental to their interest. The larger interest of the society has to be seen rather than pushing an order for the purpose of appensement of some section of the society. More so while allotting any land in the Tank-Bed it has to be borne in mind that the total capacity of filling of the Tank is not reduced meaning thereby the area of the Tank is not reduced. Secondly it does not check inflow of the water, i.e., the catchment area is not disturbed; it does not work as blating paper or cause such seepage that the Tank gets dried up earlier and that it does not cause hurdle for people and the cattle to approach the water if it is used by them earlier also. The Tajik- Beds should therefore, be allotted in exceptional circumstances. If from that point of view it is seen in the instant case possibly if I would have dealt with the ease at the initial stage, I would not have permitted allotment, but at the time it is a fate accompli by the time people filed the writ petition, the construction had already started and foundations have been filled. My learned brother Hon’ble Tibrewal J. was pleased to call for the report of the Commissioner vide his order, dated 4th August, 1993, Shri B.L. Gupta Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to inspect the site allotted to non-petitioner No. 6 and to report about the construction which had already been made till then. It may be observed here that by the time the Commissioner had been appointed the respondents have not appeared in this Court and it is an expert report, yet I have every reason to believe that it is factually correct. This report shows that at the place where the construction is being raised on the Southern side is the village Diggi which is surrounded by parkota. There is 26 feet wide road in between. Thus wall and the dam. On the Southern side there is an old Bas-stand and on the right side of it there is again a wall of dam, then public way and there after Vijay Sagar starts. On the Eastern side is the Maigh Sagar dam. The land has been allotted on the Western bank of the land and 6 feet wall has already been constructed on all sides. On South-West corner there is a Nala through which water comes in this Nala from the village which has been left as such. It has been shown that on the Eastern side, i.e., towards the dam a new wall constructed at a distance of 18 feet which is 290 feet from South to North. This wall again has been constructed upto the hight of 6 1/2 feet, after about 47 feet again a wall has been constructed. A look at the various photographs which are placed before me by the parties, it is evident that the reclaimation of the land has already been done and the four walls have been constructed which have come 6 feet above the ground level. Thus, it is virtually a fate accompli that the filling capacity in this particular area has already been done away with for all times to come because in case even if all the walls arc demolished and the re-claimed land is made to level the entire debris would remain in the tank which further damage the bed of the tank and may be more dangerous for various reasons. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice it would not be fair and proper to stop the construction any further. More particularly because a huge sum has already been spent on construction which had been raised from the cultivators and is their hand earned money. Secondly this land is being utilised for the construction of a Dharamshala and an Educational complex. In this view of the matter though I do not approve of allotment of land in Tank-Bed and consider it to be an act of unreasonableness and against the interest of the society in general yet for reasons mentioned above, I will not like to interfere with the order of allotment in this writ petition and stop the construction as a whole. However I will like to issue certain directions hereinafter so that further damage is not done to the Tank.
17. The net result of the above discussions is that this writ petition is allowed in part. The prayer about cancellation of the allotment is disallowed. However, the following directions are issued:
(a) The Executive Engineer Irrigation, District Tonk is directed to go on the spot alongwith Tehsildar and patvari of the area concerned and make specific demarcation points at the places where the walls have been constructed and prepare a plan of existing situation,
(b) That the aforesaid authorities shall ensure that no land beyond what is already re-claimed irrespective of the fact that the area covered is less than the allotted area, be permitted to be occupied by respondent No. 6,
(c) That the Executive Engineer and Tehsildar and the Patvari shall complete their task within a period of one week from the date of communication of the order and it is only thereafter that the respondent No. 6 shall start further constructions on the land,
(d) That the space shall be left for inflow of the water to the tank from the city area towards the old Bus-stand and the Ghats,
(e) That the stones and the construction material if it has fallen on this approach the same shall be removed at the cost of respondent No. 6,
(f) That the ring wall on all the sides of the building shall be so raised that in no case make the water level of the tank is, in any manner, reduced
(g) That respondent No. 6 shall not dump any garbage even after the construction is complete in the tank water nor the latrines or urinals shall be so constructed that the water of the tank is polluted in any manner,
(h) That if any approach road is legally permitted by Panchayat or Municipality, as the case may be, connecting the area on the remaining two sides, it shall only be done by cantilever process so that the flow of the water is never obstructed.
There will be no order as to costs.
