Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Writ Against Its Own Proposed Relocation from Nainital, Calls Petition Premature

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a challenge to the court's own Full Court Resolution proposing relocation to Haldwani, holding the petition premature as approximately 73 hectares of identified forest land had not yet been de-reserved or diverted.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Raman Kumar Shah challenging the court's own Full Court Resolution dated 19 June 2026, which proposed shifting the High Court Complex from Nainital to a site near Haldwani. The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit, with the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Purohit, held that the petition was premature because the identified forest land had not been de-reserved and no proposal had yet been placed before the Regional Empowered Committee for formal approval. The bench also addressed an unusual preliminary objection: because all judges of the High Court were signatories to the Full Court Resolution — including the presiding judge, Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari — the petitioner contended the bench was conflicted. The objection was overruled on the ground that no other bench was available, since every judge had signed.

The Dispute Before the Court

The proposal at the centre of the petition involves approximately 73 hectares of reserve forest land situated in the Tarai-Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, near Bel Baba Temple — specifically plot nos. 47–48 of Lamachaur Block, Bhakra Range, Tarai East Forest Division, Rudrapur. The District Magistrate, Nainital passed an order dated 14 May 2026 identifying this tract of land for relocation of the High Court Complex. The Full Court Resolution dated 19 June 2026 followed, endorsing the proposed relocation.

Raman Kumar Shah, appearing partly in person and partly through counsel, filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 656 of 2026 seeking three reliefs: certiorari to quash the Full Court Resolution dated 19 June 2026 and all consequential proceedings; certiorari to quash the District Magistrate's order dated 14 May 2026; and mandamus directing prosecution of the District Magistrate, Nainital under Sections 3A and 3B of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for directing use of reserve forest land for non-forest purposes without prior Central Government clearance.

The Legal Objections Raised

Petitioner's counsel argued that the proposed use of reserve forest land without prior approval of the Central Government violated Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits de-reservation of reserved forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without such approval. The petition also relied on the Forest Conservation Rules, 2023 (Van Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan Rules, 2023) and the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications dated 29 December 2023.

Counsel pointed to Rule 13 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2023, which requires the user agency — in this case the High Court of Uttarakhand itself — to provide non-forest land in lieu of de-reserved forest land and to bear the cost of compensatory afforestation. He contended that Rule 13 had not been complied with and that the proposed construction fell within the category of a non-site-specific, non-forest purpose, making prior clearance mandatory.

A second objection invoked the Presidential Notification dated 3 November 2000 issued under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, which fixes the seat of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Counsel argued that shifting to Haldwani would violate this notification.

The ecological dimension of the challenge rested on the claim that the proposed site falls within identified elephant corridors — specifically the Kipula–Khatima–Surai Corridor and the Gola Corridor. Counsel relied on Article 48A of the Constitution, which places a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. He also relied on this Court's judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 05 of 2021, Reena Paul v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, in which the Court had held that neither the State nor any authority is permitted to de-notify a reserved or forest area or permit its use for non-forest purposes without prior Central Government permission.

On financial grounds, counsel submitted that relocating the entire High Court would impose substantial expenditure on the public exchequer despite the existence of existing infrastructure, and that no empirical study had been placed on record to justify the claimed inconvenience to litigants.

State and Union of India's Response

The Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that the process was only at the stage of identifying land and that requisite permissions and clearances from the Central Government and the Regional Empowered Committee would be obtained at the appropriate stage. He pressed the principle of sustainable development and argued that Nainital's exhausted load-bearing capacity made relocation to Haldwani necessary for litigants, advocates, High Court staff, and the institution's growth. He also argued that the Presidential Notification uses the word “Nainital” without qualification, and that this word naturally refers to the district of Nainital — meaning a shift to Haldwani, also within Nainital district, would not breach the notification.

On the elephant corridor issue, the Advocate General, after receiving instructions from the Chief Standing Counsel and the Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India, informed the Court that the proposed land is approximately 10 kilometres away from the alleged elephant corridor. The Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Lalit Sharma, separately confirmed that no proposal had yet been submitted by the State Government to the Regional Empowered Committee. He also drew the Court's attention to Clause 19 of Annexure 4 at page 40 of the writ petition, which reports “no movement of elephant” in the Gola Corridor.

Counsel for the High Court of Uttarakhand concurred with the Advocate General that the matter remained at the identification stage and that Rule 10(4) and 10(5) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan) Rules, 2023 lay down the procedure and timeline for de-reservation proposals to be sent to the Central Government, which would be followed when the appropriate stage arose.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench examined Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Rule 10 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan) Rules, 2023, which set out the procedure for in-principle approval of de-reservation proposals. The court found that prior Central Government approval under Section 2 is required only when the stage of actual de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forest purposes arises. Since neither de-reservation had occurred nor had any formal proposal been submitted to the Regional Empowered Committee, that stage had not yet been reached.

The bench also took note of Rule 10(2)(i) read with Rules 10(4) and 10(5), which prescribe that de-reservation proposals are sent to the Regional Office for a site inspection report, which is then submitted to the Central Government for consideration by the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is required to examine, among other things, whether the use is non-site-specific, whether alternatives have been exhausted, whether impacts on forest, wildlife and the environment have been considered, and whether the user agency undertakes to provide compensatory afforestation land at its cost or the State's cost. The bench was of the view that this procedure would be followed when the appropriate stage arrived, and the Advocate General had given an assurance to that effect.

On the Presidential Notification argument, the bench agreed with the State's submission that the word “Nainital” in the notification refers to Nainital district and that a shift to Haldwani would not violate it. The bench added that even if a new Presidential Notification were required, the stage for issuing such a notification had not yet arisen.

The elephant corridor contention was rejected. The bench noted that both the Advocate General and the Deputy Solicitor General had stated that the proposed land is 10 kilometres from the area shown as an elephant corridor, and that this was corroborated by the petitioner's own annexed document showing no elephant movement in the Gola Corridor.

The prayer to prosecute the District Magistrate, Nainital under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was also turned down. The bench found that no offence under Section 2 of the Act had been committed by the District Magistrate or any other person, since the identification of land does not itself constitute de-reservation or diversion.

In a passage that addressed the broader context, the bench took judicial notice of the lack of space and infrastructure in Nainital, connectivity issues, the high cost of living there, and the financial burden these impose on litigants from marginalised sections of society, on young advocates, and on High Court staff. The bench linked these observations to the Directive Principles under Articles 39A and 46 and the Preamble's guarantees of social and economic justice, finding that conditions in Nainital do not promote social and economic justice. The bench then concluded that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 656 of 2026 by its judgment dated 3 September 2026. All three reliefs sought by the petitioner — quashing of the Full Court Resolution dated 19 June 2026, quashing of the District Magistrate's order dated 14 May 2026, and prosecution of the District Magistrate — were denied. Any pending applications in the matter were disposed of as a consequence.