ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. By this PIL, the petitioner raises an issue with respect to a water-body which is situated at village Sakti. The water body is stated to be situated over government pond more popularly known as Gaangat Dabri Talab. 2. The petitioner made a complaint to the Collector, Dist. Janjgir that the water-body known as Gaangat Dabri Talab is being commonly and regularly used by large number of people. That apart, due to availability of water in the said pond, the ground water level in the area always sufficiently remains at reasonable level at the residential areas situated around the pond. The complaint further states that the people regularly use the water of said pond for drinking and other regular activities of washing and bathing also. However, ignoring the large public utility of pond, the Chief Municipal Officer Sakti for the purpose of providing personal gains, issued “No Objection” to respondent no.6 Anand Agrawal, to build a bridge/culvert on the said pond and as soon as the certificate was issued, respondent no.6 started raising construction by encroaching the pond thereby the surface area of water body i.e., pond is being reduced because of widening activities by dropping dust, sand, earth etc. in the pond area as such the capacity of water filling in the said pond will be reduced. The petitioner has alleged that the pond has been reduced from its original area by way of such encroachment. The complaint having been made, the Tahsildar Sakti District Janjgir opened a proceeding on 04.12.2020 and ordered for spot inspection by a team. Prima facie on inspection of revenue records, it was found that the pond is situated over Khasra No.1153 area 0.178 hectares and towards west 0.30 jarib CC road and drain are constructed. The Panchnama which is filed as Annexure P-5 along with site map would show that a new bank of 0.15 Jarib width and 1.50 jarib length in size was constructed by filling with soil towards north-south of water body. Against that order, respondent no.7 Vishnu Dayal filed a revision and an interim order was passed thereby the order of removal of encroachment dated 12.1.2021 came to a standstill. Against that order, the petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that the encroachment on the water body cannot be allowed and it should be restored to its original area. 3. Against that order, the petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that the encroachment on the water body cannot be allowed and it should be restored to its original area. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 2011 SC 1123 ) and Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti Vs. Lakh Singh (2001 AIR SCW 3769 to submit that certain direction was issued to all the State Governments to preserve the water bodies and prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants from public lands. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 would submit that subsequently the order dated 12.01.2021 has been vacated by order dated 19.02.2021. Therefore, the purpose of this petition stands served and no adjudication would be required. He placed copy of order dated 19.02.2021 before this Court. 5. Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that that they would act in accordance with the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Mr. Vivek Agrawal, counsel for respondent no.5 would submit that on inspection it was found that encroachment over the pond area has been made by filling earth and thereby the area was reduced, for which, separate reports were given to the Tahsildar. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, the land is recorded as pond in revenue records. A perusal of the documents would show that the pond for which the complaint was made is situated over Kh.No.1153 and some part of Kh. No.1154. According to Panchnama, over the part of Khasra, respondent no.6 has filled the part of pond area with earth and tried to raise certain construction of road. 8. With respect to preservation of water body, the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC : AIR 2011 SC 1123 ) observed that the land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of house or any allied purpose. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below : “17. In many States, government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of the Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion, all such government orders are illegal and should be ignored. 18. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below : “17. In many States, government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of the Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion, all such government orders are illegal and should be ignored. 18. The present is a case of land recorded as village pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 : AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2005) 4 CTC 1 (Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case. 19. In this connection, we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence, they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rainwater harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years. 20. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so-called auctions is not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 : AIR 2001 SC 3215 the Supreme Court held that maintenance of ecological balance would provide healthy environment and enable people to enjoy quality life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At para 13, the Court further held that it is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain, etc., are nature’s bounty. At para 13, the Court further held that it is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain, etc., are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.” 10. Applying the above position of law to the present case, we are of the considered view that if any area of water body exists that cannot be destroyed as larger public interest is involved which directly touches upon survival of ecological balance which would provide healthy environment and enable people to enjoy quality life. The State being welfare State shall ensure the right to enjoy quality life by citizens in a healthy environment where ecological balance is maintained by preserving the material resources of community like ponds, tanks and lakes by removing illegal encroachments. Therefore, we direct the State-Respondents to restore the pond to its original area by removing encroachments and if need be, necessary excavation shall also be carried out. To keep the pond alive, the catchment area for retaining water shall be ensured. Further the State shall submit a detailed action report as per the direction given in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) within a period of 90 days. The said report shall be placed before the concerned District Legal Services Authority through the member who will monitor the same. Thereafter, the concerned District Legal Services Authority through the member may place the action taken report to the High Court within the aforesaid time. 11. With the above observation/direction, this petition stands disposed of.