Public trust doctrine bars commercial use of fragile river and forest land, with restoration and compensatory liability for ecological damage.

Public natural resources were treated as being held by the State in trust for the public, so ecologically fragile riverbank and forest land could not be diverted to private commercial use where that would impair ecological integrity or public access. The prior approval and lease for the motel were found invalid because the materials showed interference with the river's natural flow, encroachment, and construction affecting the riverbed and banks. Applying the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle, restoration of the damaged land, assessment of reversal costs, and pollution-control measures were ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the public trust doctrine formed part of Indian law and governed the State's power to lease ecologically fragile riverbank and forest land for commercial use; (ii) Whether the prior governmental approval and the lease granted in favour of the motel were liable to be quashed and restitutionary directions issued for damage to the river ecology.

Issue (i): Whether the public trust doctrine formed part of Indian law and governed the State's power to lease ecologically fragile riverbank and forest land for commercial use.

Analysis: The State was held to be a trustee of natural resources such as rivers, forests, seas and ecologically fragile lands for the benefit of the public. Private ownership or commercial exploitation of such resources was held impermissible where it would impair public use, ecological integrity or the natural character of the resource. The doctrine was applied to protect riverine and forest land from executive action that converted public natural resources to private commercial benefit without sufficient public interest justification.

Conclusion: The public trust doctrine was held to be part of Indian law, and the State's lease of ecologically fragile forest and riverbank land for commercial purposes was held to be a breach of that trust.

Issue (ii): Whether the prior governmental approval and the lease granted in favour of the motel were liable to be quashed and restitutionary directions issued for damage to the river ecology.

Analysis: The materials on record showed that the motel had interfered with the natural flow of the river, encroached upon adjoining land, and undertaken construction and channelisation works affecting the riverbed and banks. The approval granted under the forest conservation regime and the lease of 1994 were treated as invalid in light of the environmental harm and breach of trust. Applying the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, the Court directed restoration of the land to its natural condition, assessment of the cost of reversing environmental damage, and ancillary protective and pollution-control measures.

Conclusion: The prior approval and the 1994 lease were quashed and cancelled, restitutionary and pollution-control directions were issued, and the motel was required to compensate for environmental damage.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms judicial protection of public natural resources against private commercial encroachment and mandates restoration of the damaged river ecology at the cost of the party responsible for the degradation.

Ratio Decidendi: Natural resources held by the State in trust for the public cannot be diverted to private commercial use in a manner that impairs their ecological character, and where environmental degradation is caused, restoration and compensatory liability follow.

---