1. Challenge to Full Court Resolution and District Magistrate order proposing relocation of High Court to non-forest land. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit, JJ
Raman Kumar Shah – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition (M/B) No.656 of 2026
Important Points
Challenges to the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes are premature if the state's action is limited to land identification and no formal order of de-reservation or diversion has been issued.
Subject
Civil - Environmental Law
Act Referred
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: S.2, S.3A, S.3B
Forest Conservation Rules, 2023: R.10, R.13
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: S.26
Constitution of India: Art.39-A, Art.46, Art.48-A
Forest Conservation Rules, 2023: R.10, R.13
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: S.26
Constitution of India: Art.39-A, Art.46, Art.48-A
Headnote
(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2, 3A and 3B - Forest Conservation Rules, 2023 - Rules 10 and 13 - Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - Section 26 - Constitution of India - Articles 39-A, 46 and 48-A - Relocation of High Court complex - Diversion of forest land - Challenge to land identification - Request for quashing of Full Court Resolution and District Magistrate's order - Whether prior approval of Central Government is required at the stage of land identification - Court held that a petition is premature if the process is only at the stage of identifying suitable land and no formal order of de-reservation or diversion for non-forest purpose has been issued (Paras 14 and 15).
(B) Administrative Law - Scope of judicial interference at preliminary stages - The court observed that when the state is merely identifying land and has assured that due process will be followed, the challenge is devoid of merit if no actual breach of statutory prohibition has occurred yet.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Nainital and a Full Court Resolution proposing the relocation of the High Court of Uttarakhand from Nainital to Haldwani. The proposal involved approximately 73 hectares of reserved forest land. The petitioner contended that the relocation violates the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as the land was identified without central government clearance, falls within elephant corridors, and contradicts the Presidential Notification dated 03.11.2000 under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter is currently only at the stage of identification of land. It noted that the required permissions and clearances from the Central Government and the Regional Empowered Committee would be sought at the appropriate stage of actual de-reservation. Regarding the elephant corridor, it was noted that the land is 10 kilometers away from the identified corridor. The court further noted the practical difficulties in Nainital, including lack of infrastructure and high cost of living, which affects marginalized litigants.
Issues: Whether the identification of forest land for the relocation of the High Court is illegal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and whether the petition was premature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the present writ petition is premature because the process is only at the stage of land identification. Prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, is not required until the actual stage of de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forest purposes arises.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
(B) Administrative Law - Scope of judicial interference at preliminary stages - The court observed that when the state is merely identifying land and has assured that due process will be followed, the challenge is devoid of merit if no actual breach of statutory prohibition has occurred yet.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Nainital and a Full Court Resolution proposing the relocation of the High Court of Uttarakhand from Nainital to Haldwani. The proposal involved approximately 73 hectares of reserved forest land. The petitioner contended that the relocation violates the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as the land was identified without central government clearance, falls within elephant corridors, and contradicts the Presidential Notification dated 03.11.2000 under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter is currently only at the stage of identification of land. It noted that the required permissions and clearances from the Central Government and the Regional Empowered Committee would be sought at the appropriate stage of actual de-reservation. Regarding the elephant corridor, it was noted that the land is 10 kilometers away from the identified corridor. The court further noted the practical difficulties in Nainital, including lack of infrastructure and high cost of living, which affects marginalized litigants.
Issues: Whether the identification of forest land for the relocation of the High Court is illegal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and whether the petition was premature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the present writ petition is premature because the process is only at the stage of land identification. Prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, is not required until the actual stage of de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forest purposes arises.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- environmental law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raman Kumar Shah, M.C. Pant, Naunish Negi, M.S. Bhandari, Ravindra Singh Gariya, Kaushal Shah Jagati, D.S. Mehta
For the Respondents: S.N. Babulkar, P.S. Bisht, Rajeev Singh Bisht, Pradeep Hairiya, Lalit Sharma, Piyush Tiwari, Shobhit Saharia
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raman Kumar Shah, M.C. Pant, Naunish Negi, M.S. Bhandari, Ravindra Singh Gariya, Kaushal Shah Jagati, D.S. Mehta
For the Respondents: S.N. Babulkar, P.S. Bisht, Rajeev Singh Bisht, Pradeep Hairiya, Lalit Sharma, Piyush Tiwari, Shobhit Saharia
Table of Contents
2. Relocation violates Forest Conservation Act and Presidential Notification; State argues it is only at the stage of identification of land. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The writ petition is premature as the matter is only at the stage of identification of land, not de-reservation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is not required at the stage of mere identification of land. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit and premature; pending applications disposed of. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Is prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act required before the stage of formal de-reservation or use of forest land?
No, prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act is not required at the preliminary stage of identifying suitable land. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Can a petition challenging the use of forest land for a High Court relocation be filed before any formal diversion proposal?
Such a petition is premature and devoid of merit if filed before the stage of de-reservation or formal proposal to use forest land. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
8. Is the District Magistrate liable for prosecution under Section 3A of the Forest Conservation Act for passing an identification order?
No, no offence under the Forest Conservation Act is committed by the District Magistrate at the stage of merely identifying land. (Para 17 , 18 )
9. Can the seat of the High Court be changed from Nainital as specified in the Presidential Notification?
The seat was determined by a Presidential Notification, which can be changed by another notification at the appropriate stage. (Para 10 , 17 )
10. What is the role of the Regional Empowered Committee in the process of de-reserving forest land?
The Regional Empowered Committee, appointed under the Forest Conservation Rules, follows a prescribed procedure and timeline for de-reservation proposals. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 )
Presence:-
Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, petitioner present-in person, with Mr. M.C. Pant, Mr. Naunish Negi, Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Mr. Ravindra Singh Gariya, Mr. Kaushal Shah 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.
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, 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, Rudrapur) 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 Uttarakhand from Nainital is in violation of Notification dated 03.11.2000 issued by President of India under Section 2 6 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 constru
