Uttarakhand High Court
Bhaskaranand Joshi vs Union Of India And & Others on 11 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
11th March, 2026
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 28 of 2026
Bhaskaranand Joshi ------Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and & others -----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
India/respondent no.1.
Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by
Shri S.M.S.Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.
2,3 4 and 5.
ORDER:(per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed alleging that private respondents no. 8 & 9 have carried out illegal felling of trees and cutting of mountain for construction of a private road and the District Administration has failed to take any action against them. The private respondents no. 8 & 9 are stated to be having considerable political influence and have used JCB machine through dense forest about 1000 meters in length in carving the road. 1
2. Learned State counsel has placed on record the instructions received from Tehsildar, Thal. According to it, on complaint of the villagers dated 23.02.2026, the site was got inspected by a joint team of Revenue and Forest officials and in which, it transpired that the private respondents have cut the mountain using JCB machine and have felled trees. In the process, they have covered 150x2.50 = 375 sq. mts of land. It is stated that 300 sq. mts out of the said land belongs to State Government and 75 sq. mts to Van Panchayat. It is further stated that there has been no laxity on part of the officials as soon after the inspection they have initiated legal action against the private respondents. In support of the said plea, a communication sent by Tehsildar, Thal to S.D.M., Berinag dated 25.02.2026 has been annexed, in which recommendation has been made for initiating proceedings against the private respondents under Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. It is admitted in the instructions furnished by Tehsildar, Thal that the private respondents were not having any permission for the same.
2
4. Another set of instructions has been placed on record and it is by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pithoragarh Forest Division, Pithoragarh. In the said instructions also, the illegal felling of trees and cutting of mountain by private respondents using JCB machine to construct a private road is admitted. It is also admitted that the private respondents have thereby covered 150 meters x 2.50 meters of the land. The stand taken is that after the aforesaid illegalities came to the notice of the respondents they initiated immediate action by registering a Range Case No. 32/Beri/2025-26 under Section 28 (1) (3) and Section 33 (1) (C) of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001; it is stated that investigation is currently in progress and further action would be taken in the matter as per law. It is also admitted that no permission for felling of trees was granted at any stage in favour of private respondents. It is further stated that in respect of Van Panchayat land the legal ownership is with the Revenue Department and therefore, further action in the matter would be taken by the Revenue department under the prevalent laws of the State.
3
5. It is abundantly clear that mountain has been cut and trees have been felled for constructing a private road, by use of JCB and manpower. The area covered is 350 sq.mts. The length of the track which has been constructed is 150 mts and the width is 2.50 meters as admitted by the State-respondents themselves.
6. It is really surprising that such huge area of mountain land has been covered for constructing a private road without any permission under applicable laws, but the officials of Revenue department and the Forest department, who are custodian of the public land and forest were not aware of the same, till a private complaint came to be filed. It cannot be accepted that when heavy machinery like JCB was used for cutting the mountain and felling of the trees, the custodian of the public wealth would not even come to know of the illegal activity. The matter assumes additional significance as we notice that the alleged activity though cognizable offence, so far no First Information Report has been registered and the Revenue department appears to have only made recommendation for registering case against the 4 private respondents under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001.
7. The role of both the Revenue department and the Forest department requires thorough investigation by the State Government and the persons responsible for inaction and indolence have to be identified and punished.
8. Accordingly, we direct respondent no. 2 to issue necessary instructions to concerned officials for registering First Information Report, if not already registered, and hold a fact finding inquiry and identify the persons who were responsible for keeping vigil over the mountain land and preserving the flora and fauna of the area but have failed to discharge their duties and take appropriate action against them.
9. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Uttarakhand shall file his personal affidavit along with status report by the next date.
10. List on 01.04.2026.
5
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India shall also obtain instructions and assist the Court in the matter. In the meanwhile, it shall be ensured that no further construction takes place at the site.
12. Issue notice to the private respondents no. 8 & 9 by normal mode as well as by registered post returnable by the next date.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 11.03.2026 Kaushal 6