RAMAN KUMAR SHAH vs HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
Judgment reserved on:-20.08.2026
Judgment delivered on:- 03.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/B) No.656 of 2026
Raman Kumar Shah
--Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, petitioner present-in person, with Mr. M.C. Pant,
Mr. Navnish Negi, Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Mr. Ravindra Singh Gariya, Mr.
Kaushal Sah Jagati & Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Chief
Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Deputy S.G. with Mr. Piyush Tiwari, learned
Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court of
Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:-
“i. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
record and quash the Full Court Resolution of this Hon’ble Court
dated 19.06.2026 (Annexure No.1 at Page No.27) along with all
further proceedings for proposed relocation of the High Court of
Uttarakhand from its present location at Nainital.
ii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
record and quash respondent no.5/ District Magistrate, Nainital
Order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure No. 1 at Page No. 20).
iii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
for initiation of appropriate action against the District Magistrate,
Nainital under Section 3A & 3B of the Forest Conservation Act,
1980 for violation of said Act by proposing/directing use of a
reserve forest land for non-forest purposes without due
clearances/permission of de-reservation/diversion by the Central
Government.”
2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated
14.05.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital,
1
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
regarding identification of land for relocation of High
Court Complex at Nainital, as well as the consequential
Full Court Resolution dated 19.06.2026. The proposal
relates to approximately 73 hectares of forest land
situated in Tarai-Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, near
Bel Baba Temple (specifically located in plot no.47-48 of
Lamachaur, Block of Bhakra range of the Tarai East
Forest Division, Rurdrapur) for the proposed relocation of
the High Court Complex. Petitioner has questioned the
proposed use of forest land in the light of provisions of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Forest
Conservation Rules, 2023 and the Consolidated
Guidelines and Clarifications dated 29.12.2023. It is also
stated that the identified area falls within ‘elephant
corridor’ and that its diversion may have environmental
implications.
3. At the outset it is submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that in the Full Court Resolution
dated 19.06.2026, one of us being Senior Judge (Justice
Manoj Kumar Tiwari) was one of the signatories,
therefore, the petition should not be heard by this Bench.
Since all the Judges of this High Court were signatory to
the Full Court Resolution, the objection raised by
petitioner is turned down and this Bench proceeded to
hear this Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the
District Magistrate, Nainital, and the subsequent Full
Court Resolution dated 19.06.2026 proposing relocation
of the High Court Complex are contrary to the statutory
scheme governing diversion of forest land. He submits
that the proposed relocation of High Court of
2
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
Uttarakhand from Nainital is in violation of Notification
dated 03.11.2000 issued by President of India under
Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act,
2000. He further submits that the act of District
Magistrate, Nainital and Full Court Resolution is in
conflict with Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,
1980. It is submitted that the proposed site comprises
approximately 73 hectares of reserve forest land in Tarai-
Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, near the Bel Baba
Temple. Learned counsel further submits that the
proposed construction is a non-site-specific/non-forest
purpose and, therefore, the forest land cannot be diverted
or utilized without complying with the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, the Forest Conservation Rules,
2023 and the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications
dated 29.12.2023. It is contended that neither the
District Magistrate nor the authorities concerned have
obtained the requisite prior approval of the Central
Government, and the proposed reservation/diversion is
consequently impermissible in law.
5. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 15.07.2026 passed in SLP (Civil)
No.12517/2024 “ High Court Bar Association vs. State of
Uttarakhand & Ors.” has directed the State Government
to hand over the earmarked land for construction of the
new building of the High Court on “as is where is” basis
and the said order nowhere changed the nature of
reserved forest land and therefore, the compliance of the
relevant provisions is still mandatory. He further submits
that it is mandatory for the user agency i.e. Hon’ble High
Court of Uttarakhand in the present case, to abide by
Rule 13 of Forest Conservation Rules, 2023 which
mandates to provide land which is not a forest land in
3
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
place of de-reserved forest land and the user agency is
also mandated to bear the cost of raising compensatory
afforestation upon such provided land. He alleges that
Rule 13 Forest Conservation Rules, 2023 has also not
been complied with. Petitioner has relied upon Writ
Petition (PIL) No.05 of 2021, Reena Paul v. State of
Uttarakhand & Others in which this Court has held that
“neither state, nor any authority is permitted to de-notify
a reserved area or forest area, or to permit the use of the
area for non-forest purposes until and unless the prior
permission of Central Government is granted.”
6. It is also submitted that the proposed site falls
within an area having significant ecological importance
and forms part of identified elephant corridors, namely
Kipula–Khatima–Surai Corridor and Gola Corridor.
Diversion of such forest land for construction of the High
Court Complex, according to learned counsel, would be
contrary to the constitutional obligation to protect the
environment and the directions issued by the
constitutional courts.
7. Learned counsel further submits that no
adequate consideration has been given to alternative
sites and that the proposed relocation would entail
substantial expenditure from the public exchequer
despite the availability of existing infrastructure. He
submits that under Article 48-A, the State is duty bound
to endeavor, to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Any
proposed de-reservation or diversion of reserved forest
land for non-forest use or non-site specific purpose runs
contrary to Article 48-A. It is, therefore, submitted that
the impugned actions warrant interference by this Court.
4
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the District Magistrate, Nainital has
committed an offence under Section 3-A of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1989 as he has passed the impugned
order dated 14.05.2026 without prior approval of the
central government and hence he deserves to be
prosecuted under Section 3-A of the said Act.
9. The learned Advocate General appearing for
the State submits that the process of shifting of High
Court premises to Haldwani is only at the stage of
identification of land as of now and therefore he submits
that the requisite permission and clearances shall be
taken from the Central Government and Regional
Empowered Committee at an appropriate stage. He
further emphasized that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
various judgments enunciated the principle of
sustainable development and it is important not only for
the litigants, practicing Advocates, High Court staff but
also for the betterment of hill town of Nainital that the
High Court be shifted to Haldwani in view of its
exhausted load bearing capacity. The learned Advocate
General after receiving instructions from the Learned
Chief Standing Counsel and Learned Deputy Solicitor
General appearing for Union of India apprised this Court
that the proposed land is approximately 10 kilometers
away from the alleged elephant corridor.
10. He further submits that the Uttar Pradesh
Reoraganization Act, 2000 nowhere mentions that the
High Court of Uttarakhand shall be situate only at
Nainital but it is only by Presidential Notification dated
03.11.2000, it was provided that High Court Of
Uttarakhand shall be at Nainital. He further submits that
5
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
the word ‘Nainital’ is not prefixed or suffixed by any
qualifying words and, therefore, it can naturally be
assumed that the word ‘Nainital’ means the District
Nainital. Therefore, even if the premises are shifted to
Haldwani, it will not be in violation to the said
Presidential Notification.
11. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr.
Lalit Sharma, on instructions submitted that as yet no
proposal was submitted by the State Government
regarding approval before the Regional Empowered
Committee. He has further drawn the attention of this
Court to annexure-4, page-40 of the writ petition wherein
in Clause 19 Gola Corridor “no movement of elephant” is
reported.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court
of Uttarakhand concurs with the submission made by
learned Advocate General appearing for the State
regarding the fact that the matter, at present, is only in
the stage of identification of land and the requisite
permissions and clearances will be taken later. He
further brings to the attention of this Court that Rule
10(4) and 10(5) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam
Samwardhan) Rules, 2023, which lay down the
procedure to be adopted for de-reservation of a particular
portion of reserved forest land. In addition to it, a
detailed timeline for the proposal to be sent to the
Central Government and decision thereon has been
enunciated in Schedule I to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam
Samwardhan) Rules, 2023.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that the alleged inconvenience of the litigants is a
vague idea which is not supported by any empirical study
6
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
and which in any case will be outweighed by the
enormous burden on the State Exchequer on account of
the relocation of the entire High Court. He further argued
that the object and purpose of the Reorganization Act
and the creation of the State Of Uttarakhand was
development of the hill areas, and any proposal to
relocate the High Court from a hilly region to non-hilly
region is not inspired from the vision of ‘Rajya
Andolankaris’.
14. Having heard the submissions of learned
counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of
documents available on record and statutory provisions
contained in Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Uttar
Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, the Presidential
Notification and relevant rules contained in Van
(Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan) Rules, 2023 and also
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.07.2026
passed in SLP (Civil) No.12517 of 2024 “ High Court Bar
Association vs. State of Uttarakahnd & Ors .”, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is
pre-mature as the matter is at the stage of identification
of land. Therefore, prior approval of the Central
government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 is not required as of now and the said
permission can be taken as and when the stage of
de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-
forest purpose arises. It is nobody’s case that forest land
has already been de-reserved. Learned Advocate General
has informed that the matter shall be placed before
Regional Empowered Committee for approval in terms of
Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The
relevant provision contained in Section 2 of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 is herein quoted below for ready
reference:-
7
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest
land for non-forest purpose. Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force in a
State, no State Government or other authority shall make,
except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any
order directing-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the
expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time
being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall
cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) …….
(iv) ……….
Explanation - For the porpose of this section, "non-forest
purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any
forest land or portion thereof for-
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms,
oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal
plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation; but
does not include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of forests
and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts,
fire lines, wireless communications and construction of
fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench
marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like
purposes.
15. This Court also finds force in the submission
made by learned counsel of the High Court that presently
the stage is of identification of land and Rule 10(2i) read
with 10 (4) & (5) of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan)
Rules, 2023 mentions the timeline as well as procedure
for de-reservation of land, which shall be followed by
Regional Empowered Committee appointed by Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change when the
appropriate stage arises. The relevant provision is quoted
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“10. In-Principle approval of the proposal.—
(2) All proposals, other than those referred to in sub-rule (1)
and following proposals, namely:-
(i) dereservation;………
(3)…………………….
(4) Site inspection report shall be prepared for proposals
specified in sub-rule (2) by the Regional Office and the same
shall be submitted to the Central Government for
consideration by the Advisory Committee.
(5) The proposals received by the Central Government shall
be examined in the following manner, namely:-
8
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
(i) all proposals under sub-rule (2) along with the site
inspection report as required under sub-rule (4) or as asked
by the Central Government, shall be referred, after
examination of its completeness, to the Advisory Committee.
(ii) the Advisory Committee shall examine all
proposals referred to it in clause (i), giving due regards, but
not limited to, the following, and after further enquiry, as
deemed necessary, shall make recommendation to the
Central Government for consideration for approval:-
(a) the proposed use of the forest land is not for any non-site
specific purpose such as agricultural purpose, office or
residential purpose or for the rehabilitation of persons
displaced for any reason;
(b) the State Government or the Union territory
Administration, as the case may be, has certified that it has
considered all alternatives and that no other alternative in
the circumstances is feasible and that the required area is
the minimum needed;
(c) the State Government or the Union territory
Administration, as the case may be, before making his
recommendation, has considered all issues having direct
and indirect impacts on the diversion of forest land on the
forest, wildlife and the environment;
(d) concerned mandates under the National Forest Policy;
(e) whether adequate justification has been given and
appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed by the
State Government or the Union territory Administration, as
the case may be, if the forest land proposed to be used for
non-forest purposes forms part of a national park, wildlife
sanctuary, tiger reserve, designated or identified tiger or
wildlife corridor, or habitat of any endangered or threatened
species of flora and fauna or of an area lying in the severely
eroded catchment; and
(f) the State Government or the Union territory
Administration, as the case may be, undertakes to provide
at its cost or at the cost of the user agency the requisite
extent of appropriate land, as per rule 13, for the purpose of
carrying out compensatory afforestation.”
16. At this stage, the Court finds it appropriate to
take into account preambular precepts of Justice- social,
economic and political, along with Article 39-A and 46
which form part of Directive Principles of State Policy,
which provide guiding light to the State to ensure equal
justice and free legal aid and promote educational and
economical interest of weaker sections of Society. At this
stage, the Court takes judicial notice of lack of space and
infrastructure in small tourist hill town of Nainital;
connectivity issues and high cost of living in Nainital
9
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
which causes extra-ordinary financial burden upon
litigants who come from marginalized sections of Society,
problems faced by young advocates and staff of High
Court and even for growth of High Court as an institution
including increasing strength of Judges. The high cost of
living at Nainital does not promote social and economic
justice. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has
approached this Court 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 has already assured that
the due process of law shall be followed while shifting the
premises of the High Court.
17. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner based on ‘elephant corridor’ also is bereft of
merit as learned Advocate General appearing for the
State and Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Union
of India have submitted before this Court that the
proposed land is at a distance of 10 kilometers from the
area which is shown as elephant corridor. This fact is
also supported by the document annexed by the
petitioner themselves. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the High Court cannot be shifted to
Haldwani as the Uttar Pradesh State Reorganization Act,
2000 prohibits doing so, also does not hold any water as
the seat of High Court of Uttarakhand was stated to be at
Nainital by a Presidential Notification and it can be
changed by another notification as and when the
appropriate stage arises. This Court is of the view that
stage for issuing such a Notification has not yet arisen.
As far as the prayer of petitioner to prosecute the District
10
UKHC010138012026
2026:UHC:7984-DB
Magistrate, Nainital under provisions of Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 is concerned, the Court is of the
view that the prayer is devoid of merit as no offence
under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is
committed by District Magistrate, Nainital on any other
person.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.09.2026
AK
AVNEET
KAUR
Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e245a1c11df9aa4
90cfd1403838bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54688668187E4D722
C2EDBFDAF35AB2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE,
cn=AVNEET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.03 20:03:55 +05'30'
11