Uttarakhand High Court
Atul Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 11 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
11TH MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 116 OF 2023
Atul Kumar Chauhan ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Brahmchari Sudhanand, learned
counsel through video conferencing.
Counsel for the State : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. C.S. Rawat and Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, learned counsel.
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned
counsel.
ORDER:(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard Mr. Bharchari Sudhanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 9.
2. A PIL bearing Writ Petition (PIL) No.119 of 2013, "Anuj Kansal vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench by order dated 19.06.2018. Inter alia, the following directions were issued:-
"(iv) The State Government is recommended/ 1 suggested to make suitable Law to regulate the construction for group housing complexes within a period of three months from today.
(v) The State Government shall not permit the use of agricultural land recorded in revenue records as agricultural land to be converted for group housing complexes taking into consideration the acute shortage of farming land in the State of Uttarakhand. It is made clear that this will not apply to a farmer who wants to build a house for himself, as per the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, till suitable legislation is made. In other words, there shall be ban on conversion of agricultural land/ orchard land for construction of group housing projects/ complexes, including by the societies, till the enactment of law."
3. The judgment afore-said was challenged by State of Uttarakhand and certain private parties by filing various SLPs' before the Supreme Court. The SLP filed by the State bearing SLP (Civil) No.20870 of 2018 was disposed of by the Supreme Court with the following observation:-
"Coming to the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand, they are aggrieved by the directions contained in clause (iv) and (v) of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. We clarify that clause (iv) of paragraph 14 is not a direction to the State Government to enact any law. Ordinarily, no such direction can be issued by a High court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said clause is a mere suggestion, and it is the State's prerogative to consider whether the existing legal regime is sufficient enough to tackle the menace of unauthorized construction or conversion of agricultural lands into unregulated and unauthorized residential colonies. All that we wish to observe is that the State Government must immediately address the issue and take appropriate policy decision in the public interest to prevent unauthorized and 2 illegal constructions over agricultural land and over such lands which are not meant for residential purposes. Still further, we grant liberty to the State Government to approach the High court and seek any clarification with respect to the direction contained in clause (v) of the impugned judgment. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
4. SLP (Civil) No.10228 of 2024 filed by Champa Rawat and others, aggrieved by the directions contained in Paragraph 14(v) of the judgment of the High Court, was disposed of as follows:-
"The appellants- Champa Rawat and others are aggrieved by the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 14(v) of the impugned judgment whereby a blanket ban on conversion of agricultural land/ orchard land for construction of Group Housing Projects etc., has been imposed. The grievance of the appellants is that though the conversion of their land to non-agricultural land has been permitted by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 09.12.2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, yet a condition has been imposed that such conversion shall abide by paragraph 14(v) of the impugned judgment of the High Court. In clause (v) of paragraph 14, the High Court has, in a way, imposed a blanket ban on the conversion of agricultural or orchard land into non-agricultural purposes. It appears to us that the appellants' plea that their land was found to be not meant for agricultural purposes and hence has been permitted for use other than for agricultural purposes, is predominantly a question of fact. The plea of the appellants that their land is non-agricultural in nature and thus has rightly been permitted to be used for non-agricultural purposes, can be appropriately urged by them before the High court by seeking clarification of clause (v) of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. They may also separately challenge the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhawar wherein the condition of compliance of 3 paragraph 14(v) of the impugned judgment of the High court has been imposed. Such an application/ Writ Petition, if any, filed by the appellants shall be considered by the High court as per its own merits. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. We have not expressed any opinion in this regard.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. Learned State Counsel is not in a position to state whether the State Government, in pursuance of liberty granted to it by the Supreme Court, has filed any application for clarification. On the other hand, it seems that the State obtained legal opinion from District Government Counsel (Civil) and panel lawyer of Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority, Haridwar in the month of November, 2024, according to which, the order and judgment of the High Court afore-said does not restrict the power conferred upon the Development Authority by virtue of Section 38-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as adopted in the State of Uttarakhand.
6. It further appears that on basis of the said legal opinion, the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority, Haridwar, in its Board meeting dated 05.11.2023, vide Item Nos.83(12) and 83(13), permitted change of land use of large parcels of agricultural lands for residential/ group housing purposes.
4
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Board afore-said is in the teeth of the direction issued by this Court vide Paragraph 14(v) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.119 of 2013. He submits that the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority has conveniently circumvented the afore-said direction taking shelter behind the legal opinion which, on the face of it, was manifestly vague and cannot dilute the directions given by the Court.
8. Concededly, the Supreme Court has not interfered with the direction contained in Paragraph 14(v) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.119 of 2013. The State Government was only permitted to seek clarification in respect of the direction given vide clause (v) of Paragraph 14. Thus, the ban on conversion of the agricultural land to group housing continues to be applicable. Although, the Supreme Court had directed the State Government to immediately address the issue flagged by this Court, in its order dated 19.06.2018, in the afore-said PIL, it does not appear that the State Government has taken any policy decision to prevent unauthorized and illegal constructions over agricultural land and other lands which are not meant for residential purposes.
9. Mr. Rawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf 5 of Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority has invited out attention towards a decision taken by a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Vice-Chairman, Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority, Haridwar, dated 13.09.2023, in which, it was resolved that in all areas where master-plan is applicable, no permission under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act shall be granted, unless the agricultural land is permitted to be converted for other uses. The second decision taken was that all Sub- Divisional Magistrates, in their respective areas, shall ensure that no illegal construction takes place on agricultural land.
10. The afore-said decision, in our considered opinion, does not amount to any policy decision by the State to prevent illegal diversion of agricultural land for other uses, as was permitted to be taken by the Supreme Court in view of the directions contained in the order passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.119 of 2013.
11. On the other hand, the Resolution passed by the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority, in its Board meeting dated 05.11.2024, permitting conversion of agricultural land to residential/ group housing purposes, is clearly in teeth of the direction contained in Paragraph 14(v).
6
12. Mr. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority, prays for and is granted a week's time to show-cause on behalf of HRDA as to how the decision taken by it, in its Board meeting dated 05.11.2024, does not amount to circumvention of the direction given vide Paragraph 14(v) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.119 of 2013.
13. Learned State Counsel shall also clarify the stand of the State Government and also whether any policy decision has been taken by the State to prevent unauthorized and illegal construction over agricultural land. Learned State Counsel shall also apprise the Court whether there is any policy for creating land bank to meet future residential needs.
14. List on 19.03.2026.
15. Meanwhile, no further activity shall be permitted to be taken by any party or individual on basis of Resolution of the HRDA passed in its Board meeting dated 05.11.2024.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 11th March, 2026 NISHANT 7