Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 29
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that rivers, natural choes and springs are a common heritage of mankind. The high court also ruled that the state government was the trustee of ‘communal natural resources’ and the same could not be claimed by any private person.
The ruling by the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep came on a petition seeking directions to the respondents to acquire chunk of land through which “Sirhind Choe” was passing. The petitioner’s contention was that the choe, passing through his land, was constructed 30 to 40 years ago by the state government for management and discharge of waste water of Sirhind, Fatehgarh Sahib, Bassi Pathana and other adjoining villages. But acquisition proceedings were not initiated.
This verdict has significant implications for environmental and natural resource management. It emphasises the role of governments in safeguarding the resources for the collective benefit of mankind, while also limiting the ability of private entities to lay claim to them.
The Bench asserted the “Sirhind Choe” –– natural rain water drainage water running since time immemorial –– was not required to be acquired by the state government. It added all rivers, natural choe and natural springs were res communes –– things common to all, which “cannot be owned or appropriated, such as light, air, and the sea”. These were things common to all by the law of nature.
The Bench added the state government managed these natural resources for the benefit of mankind and had no obligation to acquire these natural water channels. Sirhind Choe was aptly and rightly notified under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act and was not required to be put to acquisition.
The Bench, at the same time, described as “justified” the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of directions to the respondent concerned to make permanent arrangements for controlling the drainage of waste water accumulating in surrounding fields and in his land.
The Bench observed the petitioner was also justified in seeking further directions to the respondent concerned to immediately make arrangements for preventing overflow from the choe as it was damaging his crop/land.
“We find that the prayer, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified, therefore, a mandamus is issued upon the competent authority to look into the his grievances and ensure that all such measures be taken to prevent the overflow of the choe, so that the drainage water may not destroy the crop/land of the petitioner as this may have ill affect upon the livelihood of the petitioner,” the Bench added, while disposing of the plea.
