‘Nainital has high cost of living’: Uttarakhand HC bins plea against court’s shift to Haldwani

The court said the case deserved to be dismissed as the petitioner had approached it at a “premature stage as currently the forest land has not been de-reserved and it has only been identified as being suitable for shifting of High Court”. The state government had assured that the due legal process would be followed while shifting the high court premises, it noted.

On May 14, the Nainital district magistrate had passed an order regarding the identification of land for relocation of the high court complex. Then the high court passed a full court resolution on June 19 over the proposal to shift the court from Nainital to “approximately 73 hectares of forest land situated in Tarai-Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, near Bel Baba Temple”.

Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit said the plea was premature as the matter of relocation was only at the stage of identification of land.

Questioning the ‘proposed’ use of forest land, the petitioner claimed that the area identified for relocation falls within an “elephant corridor” and its diversion might have environmental consequences.

‘Ecological importance’

Advocates M C Pant, Navnish Negi and M S Bhandari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the proposed construction of a high court complex was a “non-site-specific/non-forest purpose” and hence forest land could not be utilised for the purpose without following the Forest (Conservation) Act, Rules and the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications dated December 29, 2023.

According to the counsel, neither the district magistrate nor the authorities concerned obtained the required prior approval of the central government in this regard, and hence the proposed reservation was not allowed as per the law. The counsel said the proposed site was ecologically important, formed part of identified elephant corridors, and diversion of such forest land for construction of the court complex would be against the ‘constitutional obligation’ to protect the environment.

Advocate General S N Babulkar, representing the state, submitted that the process of relocation was only at the stage of identification of land and the required clearances would be taken at the appropriate time. “It is important not only for the litigants, practising advocates, high court staff but also for the betterment of the hill town of Nainital that the high court be shifted to Haldwani in view of its exhausted load-bearing capacity,” he argued, and said the proposed land was approximately 10 km away from the alleged elephant corridor.

Deputy Solicitor General Lalit Sharma submitted that no proposal was submitted by the state government regarding approval before the regional empowered committee. Advocate Shobhit Saharia, appearing for the Uttarakhand High Court, pointed out that de-reserving forest land required certain legal procedures.

Case premature: HC

Dismissing the plea, the high court stated that the case was “premature as the matter is at the stage of identification of land” and the Centre’s approval could be taken when “the stage of de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose arises”.

The argument that the relocation would affect the elephant corridor had no merit as “the proposed land is at a distance of 10 kilometres from the area which is shown as elephant corridor. This fact is also supported by the document annexed by the petitioner themselves,” the high court added.