INTRODUCTION
Dhol Ka Badh, located on the outskirts of Jaipur, has recently found itself at the nexus of a legal battle between environmentalists, city planners, and industrial developers. The site where it once appeared, nothing more than a swath of acquired land, is now the focal point of one of Rajasthan’s most rancorous urban development and environmental debates. With biodiversity, animals, trees and birds on one side and a promise of a ₹1350 crore Fin-Tech Park on the other, the matter at hand is more than just land use-it is about the law and how it shapes urban futures.[1]
This blog explores how the law navigates the complex terrain between environmental conservation and industrial development. Through the case of Dhol Ka Badh, it examines the limits of public interest litigation, the role of civil society, and the challenges of reconciling ecology with economy.
A FOREST BORN FROM ABANDONMENT
The seeds of this dispute stretch back to the late 1970s. In 1979–82, 591 bighas of land in Dhol Ka Badh, and 10.69 hectares of land in nearby Jhalana Chod, were taken under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953[2]. The land was taken expressly for industrial development. The land was given to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) in 1983.[3]
However, there was little industrial development other than a failed attempt at creating a gem industrial estate. The diamond and gem zone failed to develop, and over the decades, nature reclaimed the land. Trees grew, shrubs sprouted, the area began to host nearly 75 species of migratory birds, and by the 2000s, the abandoned plot reshaped itself into a green frontier, a biodiversity zone with no official status.[4]
THE FIN-TECH PARK & THE RISE OF LITIGATION
In 2021, the Rajasthan government launched an ambitious plan for a Fin-Tech Park on what was by then a spontaneous forest. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and RIICO issued tenders and concluded contracts for development. Environmentalists and concerned citizens were stunned. In response to this the Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti and one individual petitioner, Ravindra Singh Choudhary, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) application in the Rajasthan High Court whose aims were to stop the Fin-Tech Park and instead develop the land as a biodiversity park because of its natural growth, environmental significance, and repeated references in previous government documents from 1983 that identified the land for ecological and residential use.[5]
The case of Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors —quickly became a lightning rod for broader debates on legal and policy approaches to preserving the environment, land use planning, and the nature of commitments made by the government.
GOVERNMENT’S DEFENCE & THE ROLE OF THE MASTER PLAN
The State and RIICO contested the PIL, claiming that the land’s status had never been changed; it was always planned to be used for industrial use in both the Master Plan from 1991-1998 and the Master Plan for 2025, and the piece of land had never been designated for residential use or ecological purposes. At one point, the 2025 Plan did show an intention to classify the land as residential; however, RIICO objected to this classification, and thus it was amended.[6]
It was claimed that the site contained only 735 trees, not 2421 and that they had already designated a 6.32-hectare green belt as part of the Fin-Tech Park scheme. The Fin-Tech project would also substantially impact the economy of Rajasthan and generate jobs for approximately 50,000 people.[7]
The High Court ultimately dismissed the PIL, stating “there wassuppression of material facts, misstatement of facts, misleading statements and exaggerated statements.”[8]
PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NGT
Remarkably, before the PIL, a similar application was already pending before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Bhopal Bench, by activists Komal Srivastava and Shammi Nanda.[9] The NGT admitted that the forest did exist but refused to stay the project. The NGT directed that trees cannot be cut without permission from the Forest Department, and must plant 10 trees for every tree felled.
The competing litigation in the NGT and the High Court became a considerable source of contention. The High Court criticised the petitioners for not disclosing to the court that they had already filed proceedings in the NGT and lifted whole paragraphs verbatim from the NGT filings, calling this an attempt to ‘mislead the court’.[10]
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS
The petitioners relied upon the case of Gulab Kothari v State of Rajasthan[11], where the Rajasthan High Court highlighted that industrial areas should not be situated next to residential areas and suggested a one km buffer.
The respondents relied upon binding Supreme Court decisions dealing directly with the land in question. In RIICO v Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd.[12] and RIICO v Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society [13], the Supreme Court upheld that the land was industrial and refused to permit it to be used for residential allotments and/or uses.[14] In light of these decisions, the High Court held that the relief claimed in Dhol Ka Badh PIL must, therefore, also be legally unsustainable, particularly given that the Fin-Tech Park has already commenced and provided a bona fide public and economic interest.
A SIMILAR CASE: GACHIBOWLI BIODIVERSITY CONTROVERSY, HYDERABAD
The situation in Dhol Ka Badh is similar to that of the Gachibowli biodiversity zone in Hyderabad, where activists and students of the University of Hyderabad opposed the IT and infrastructure projects that were to be constructed in the forested land. [15]In both situations, there is a consistent trend: a government commits to land for any industry or infrastructure, nature takes over during the lengthy bureaucratic process, and when development starts again, the litigation starts, putting ecology against the economy.
PILs & THE PUBLIC’S ROLE
The PIL mechanism is important in a democracy because a citizen can be asked to be accountable if an executive action is at odds with the public interest. Accordingly, a citizen may use the courts (i.e., a writ petition) as an avenue for accountability. Some courts are now taking a more careful view of proxy litigation that has been instituted without real concern.
In Dhol Ka Badh, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioners for their misuse of the PIL vehicle in failing to disclose the earlier petitions.[16]
This reflects an evolving view from a court: while environmental concerns are always able to be pursued, the PILs must meet expectations of good faith, comprehensive disclosure and coherence with the law.
PUBLIC OUTCRY & CIVIL SOCIETY RESISTANCE
Despite mounting legal obstacles, public protests around Dhol Ka Badh are on the rise. New protests are being organised by residents, environmentalists, and civil rights groups who are trying to defend the green space, and NGOs like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Rajasthan have taken a lead in terms of organising sit-ins, a march, and a relay hunger strike, demanding a cease to tree removal.
PUCL state president and Dalit intellectual, Bhanwar Meghvanshi, was critical of the contradictions of the national campaigns like “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam” and the systemic removal of 1000s of trees in Dhol Ka Badh to expand projects like the Unity Mall.[17] Kavita Srivastava and other activists maintained in the ongoing protests.[18] Thus, the distinction between the legal process and the public’s growing concerns about the environment has become increasingly pronounced.
CONCLUSION
The situation in Dhol Ka Badh illustrates how legal authority and public sentiment can be in great opposition. The High Court judgement appears to speak to existing Supreme Court precedent and provides legitimacy for RIICO’s use of the land for industrial purposes, but this judgement and ruling do not mitigate or decrease public dissent in opposition to this project. Protests, sit-ins, hunger strikes and criticism from groups like PUCL demonstrate that public frustration with bureaucratic decision-making in the realm of development has reached an unsustainable level.
Legally, the project can continue. But the resistance demonstrates a larger structural issue where urban development cannot rely solely on historical analogues, planning contexts and decisions endorsed by national judges. As urban areas expand, it is not enough to just think about ecological values; community voices must be included in what will become planning policy.
Dhol Ka Badh may not become a biodiversity park, but it is a powerful symbol that speaks to the kind of urban planning that sets powerful, significant forms that are balanced and just, reflective and transparent, and cooperative and consensus-building.
Author(s) Name: Bhomira Goyal (O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana)
References:
[1] Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2024) RJ-JP 39015-DB
[2] Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act 1953
[3] Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti n(1)
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.,21
[6] Ibid.,15
[7] Ibid.,17
[8] Ibid.,21-22
[9] Ibid.,11-12
[10] Ibid.,13
[11] Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj) 562
[12] RIICO v Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd (2013) 5 SCC 470
[13] RIICO v Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society (2013) 5 SCC 427
[14] Lok Sampati Sanrakshan Samiti & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2024) RJ-JP 39015-DB
[15] In Re: Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana MANU 2025 SCOR 31867
[16] Ibid.,22
[17] ‘Dol Ka Badh stir: Protesters seek Raj Dy CM Diya Kumari’s intervention’ The Statesman (2 July 2025) <https://www.thestatesman.com/india/dol-ka-badh-stir-protesters-seek-raj-dy-cm-diya-kumaris-intervention-1503452452.html> accessed 05 July 2025
[18] Ibid.
