[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1
1
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER
v.
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2022)
AUGUST 26, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, HIMA KOHLI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Allotment of Land – For setting up a cement plant –
Respondent-company was asked to produce NOC/orders for
allocation of ‘Johad’ land from the High Court – The respondent-
company approached the High Court by filing writ petition –
Accompanying the said writ petition were several documents
pertaining to the spot inspection of the site, the reports of the
Tehsildar and the correspondence between the parties to
demonstrate that the subject land that had been classified as ‘Johad’,
neither fell in the catchment area, nor did water gather there and
there did not exist any natural source of water on the subject land
and therefore, classification of the subject land could be converted
to ‘Siwai Chak’ land – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
writ petition – Division Bench of the High Court directed the
appellant-State Government to consider the respondent’s
representations – Appellant-State Government passed an order dated
25.01.2016, holding, inter alia, that the subject land having been
recorded in the revenue record as ‘Johad’, no allotment could be
made in favour of the respondent-company – Thereafter, the Division
Bench proceeded to hear the respondent’s appeal on merits and
allowed the same, directed the appellant-State Government to allot
the subject land in question to the respondent-company and take
consequential steps – Before the Supreme Court, appellant-State by
relying on a letter of Tehsildar stated that in some khasra numbers
of the said village, there exists a pucca pond which acts as a
catchment area of rain water – Held: The aforesaid communication
by Tehsildar was not filed by the appellant-State Government before
the High Court at the appropriate stage, well before the date of
passing of the impugned judgment – Nothing prevented the
appellant-State Government from producing the relevant
photographs of the purported pucca pond existing at some spots

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
within village Baswa – It is not the case of the appellant-State
Government that the earlier reports submitted by the Tehsildar after
conducting a physical spot inspection were manipulated or prepared
in a mala fide manner, nor is there any averment made in the appeal
that departmental action was initiated against the then Tehsildar
for having prepared incorrect reports of the spot inspection – Given
the said position, there is no reason to discard the two Inspection
reports prepared by the Tehsildar that form a part of the record –
Both the said reports have stated in clear terms that there is no
natural water body on the subject land and the ‘Gair-Mumkin Johad’
falling under the proposed mining lease area does not fall within
the water logging area or the catchment area – Therefore, the
appellant-State Government directed to take necessary steps to
process the allotment of the subject land in favour of the respondent-
company.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a matter of record that the appellant–State
Government has not questioned the Reports prepared by the
Tehsildar, Nawalgarh after making spot inspection on two
occasions. The position remains the same even as of now. The
first Report was prepared by the Tehsildar on 19th/27th April,
2011 and the second one on 25th November, 2012/05th December,
2012. Both the Reports were categorical in their findings that
there was no natural water body on the subject land classified as
a ‘Johad’ and that the subject land neither fell in the catchment
area, nor did water ever collect there and there was no natural
source of water that existed on the subject land. That being the
position, we see no reason to permit learned counsel for the
appellant–State Government to rely on a communication
addressed by the Tehsildar to the District Collector, in r

…