SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(UK) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Heera Singh Pangtey and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2364 of 2015
Decided on : 04-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. T.A. Khan, assisted by Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V.D. Bisen, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 2(1)(a), 9, 21, and 40 - Necessity of acquiring land for defense purposes, adjoining Line of Actual Control - Petitioners, claiming rights as Scheduled Tribes, argued against acquisition of agricultural land - Court upheld acquisition, emphasizing community's interest over personal rights in defense matters - Acquisition deemed a public purpose exceeding individual rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. (Paras 1, 4, 9, 110, 119)

(B) Eminent Domain - Defense of the country as paramount public purpose - Rights of tribes protected under law but do not override national security needs - Legislative intent prioritized in matters of urgent land acquisition for military purposes. (Paras 12, 85, 106)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, residents of a border village classified as Scheduled Tribes, challenged land acquisition for military outpost linked to national security amid threats from neighboring country - Claimed land was vital for their livelihood and required when conditions for agriculture were met. (Paras 5-6, 10)

Findings of Court:
Court found the government’s action to be justified under the Act of 2013, emphasizing the necessity for effective military deployment along the sensitive international border, thus prioritizing public safety over individual property rights. (Paras 76-79, 119)

Issues: Whether the rights of Scheduled Tribes prevail over the national defense interests in land acquisitions; and compliance with statutory requirements for land acquisition. (Paras 18, 120)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the urgency and need for defense acquisition under the legislation outweighed individual rights, particularly in light of a history of security threats; concluding that personal claims cannot impede national security endeavours. (Paras 90-111)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Floreat Alma Mater, our Great Nation India.

2. The aforesaid reference has a relevance in the context of the issue involved, and the relevance of a Country for each and every citizen, who resides in it. The reference of the term “Alma Mater” in its literal and contextual meaning would mean a “generous Mother” and that is why our Country is the only country in the World, which is referred as to be the “Motherland”. If the two references of the word “Alma Mater” is preceded with the word used as “floreat”, that too has a reference denoting to the flourishment of the country and to its long life, which would be of a contextual perennial importance, while dealing with the issue raised by the petitioners.

3. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is of a grave national concern, pertaining to regulating the frontier borders of the country, adjoining to the ‘Line of Actual Control’, which adjoins and shares the boundary lines of our neighbouring country, China, which is approximately about 20 to 25 Kms. only away from the land, in dispute, which is proposed to be acquired for the purposes of meeting out the defence need of the ITBPF, i.e. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (hereinafter to be referred as I.T.B.P.).

4. The issue would be, as to whether despite of there being certain limited statutory protection; having being granted to a specified class of reserved community, i.e. the Scheduled Tribes, whether their personal rights, if it is, at all prevailing under law, would prevail over the right and interest of the nation, i.e. our Motherland, particularly, when it calls for defending the critical and strategic border of our Nation, in order to have preparedness, to meet any unprecedented insurgencies or army aggression, by the neighbouring county China.

5. The petitioners to the present Writ Petition, contend and claim themselves to be the resident of Village “Milam”, Tehsil Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh, which is located at a high altitude, in the higher laps of the Himalayas, approximately about 12,000 to 13,000 feets, in height above sea level. The said village “Milam”, where the land in dispute is situated and which is proposed to be acquired for defence purposes, is only approximately about 20 to 25 Kms. away from the bordering frontier, i.e. Line of Actual Control, between India and China, and strategically, it is of a grave military importance, for the defence of the country.

6. The petitioners have come up with the case, and they have raised a claim, that they are the residents of the said village, who yet again contend and claim to belong to a scheduled tribes, as it has been classified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and are included as “Tribes”, as it has been specified under U.P. Scheduled Tribes U.P. Order of 1967. The petitioners contend, that the land, in question, which lies in the aforesaid Village is located in Khasra Nos. 1417, 1416, 1419, 1397, 1409, 1410 and 1411. The petitioner No.3, has contended, that as far as the aforesaid land described above is concerned, it is allegedly shown to have been recorded in the revenue records in the name of petitioner No.3.

7. On the other hand, the late petitioner No.1, who was later on; substituted by the petitioners Nos. 1/1 to 1/5, have similarly claimed their ownership over Khasra No. 1370 and 1371 of Village Milam and they have claimed and contended, that they too stood recorded in the revenue records, from the time of their predecessors. Late Mr. Mahiman Singh, father of petitioner No.2, and they have also claimed, that they have their rights over part of the unidentified land lying in khasra No. 1421 and 1417 of the same village.

8. Similarly, petitioner No. 4, had also claimed and contended, that he is the owner in possession of the land recorded in khasra Nos. 1470 and 1408, which has been placed on record by petitioner No.4, in order to substantiate his claim over the land, in question. The petitioners contended, t

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top