Commandant Bengal Engineering Group vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4813 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Commandant Bengal Engineering Group vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                          Judgment reserved on:-21.07.2025
                          Judgment delivered on:-13.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Criminal Misc. Application No.2339 of 2023

Commandant Bengal Engineering Group
& Centre Roorkee through Commandant
Bengal Engineering Group, Roorkee   ..........Applicant

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand                           ...........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr.    Rajesh    Sharma,     Advocate     for the  applicant.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the
State.
Mr. S.C. Burman, Advocate for the Intervener.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.05.2023, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridar, in Criminal Revision No.351 of 2022, Commandant Bengal Engineering Group and Centre Vs. State of Uttarakhand and order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, in Case No.8 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Commandant Bengal Engineering Group, under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.

2. The present case arises from a long standing dispute between the Bengal Engineering Group and Centre (BEG and Centre), Roorkee and the residents of Village Bhangeri, located on the eastern periphery of Roorkee Cantonment Area. The BEG and Centre, established in 1853 presently occupies approx 648.90 acres of land classified as A-1 Defence Land, acquired through various notifications issued in 1803, 1853, 1950 & 1962. The records of this land are maintained by the Defence Estate Officer, Meerut, Cantonment Executive Officer, Roorkee. The dispute pertains

to Khasra No.710, situated near the training zone of BEG and Centre. A kachha track passes through this area, which the Army contends forms part of its training field, while villagers claim it to be a public pathway (gohar raasta) used to access Dhandera Railway Station and Roorkee town. Two alternative black topped routes, constituted by the Civil Administration are available for the use of villagers. Over time differing claims arose regarding the nature of this track. Several incidents of alleged trespass and obstruction occurred, including one in February, 2008, when the villagers reportedly entered the restricted area through the Bishamber Gate, leading to official correspondence between the Army and the local administration followed up by a joint meeting held on 20th July, 2010 between District Administration, Army Authorities and villagers. Thereafter, multiple civil proceedings were initiated by the villagers. In Civil Suit No.15 of 2005, Shyam Singh and others Vs. BEG and Centre, Roorkee and Civil Suit No.157 of 2012, Kallu and others Vs. BEG Centre, Roorkee, interim relief was initially granted in the year 2008 but later was set aside in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Roorkee, on 21st May 2009.

3. In subsequent proceedings the High Court of Uttarakhand in WPMS No.1261 of 2009, by judgment dated 07th August, 2009 upheld Army's possession over the disputed land and dismissed their challenge. Despite these adjudications, a fresh application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the villagers before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, in the year 2022, alleging obstruction over a public path. Thereafter the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate issued a show cause notice on 27th June, 2002 and passed an order on 26th July, 2022 directing the Army to remove the alleged obstruction. The said order was challenged by the Army through Criminal Revision No.351 of 2022 before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed on 30th May,

2023. The matter has since continued in dispute between the parties, primarily concerning the nature and ownership of Khasra No.710 and the jurisdiction of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue directions under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. in relation to the said land.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire disputed area falls within A-1, Defence land, duly recorded in the General Land Register and under the absolute control and management of the Ministry of Defence. He submits that the land is primarily used for training activities involving live explosives, exercises and mine and warfare simulations. Therefore, the movement of civilians through such area is strictly prohibited under Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937.

5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the claim of the villagers over the said land stands conclusively adjudicated and dismissed by the competent court. The Representative Suits - Civil Suit Nos.15 of 2005 and 157 of 2012 - along with the their appeals and writ petition before this Court have all been decided in favour of BEG and Centre, Roorkee, Haridwar, thereby extinguishing any alleged right of passage. The learned counsel argued that once a competent civil court has determined the ownership and possession the executive authority under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. cannot reopen or re-adjudicate the same issue. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, therefore acted without jurisdiction in entertaining villagers' complaint.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is intended for removal of public nuisance and cannot be invoked to question ownership of land or to create a right of way

over defence property. The proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate were ex facie void ab initio, being contrary to settled law and binding civil decrees. He further argues that Tehsildar's report on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate relied upon was factually incorrect, as subsequent joint surveys confirmed that the alleged path does not correspond to Khasra No.710 and lies entirely within Army's restricted perimeter.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the civil administration has already provided two alternative metalled road connected Bhanegri to Dhandera Railway Station. He submits that villagers insistence on reopening the kachha track through defence land is therefore an attempt to encroach upon military premises.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by means of their counter affidavit submits that Khasra No.710, ad-measuring around 0.3590 hectare, stands duly recorded in the revenue record as "Gauhar Rasta"

(public pathway) under Section 132 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, therefore, by virtue of law no individual or propriety rights can accrue over such land. He submits that the nature of land has never changed or reclassified and therefore Sub-Divisional Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to remove obstruction.

9. The learned counsel for the State submits that villagers while asserting their easementary right of way, approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate complaining about the said obstruction. Upon spot inspection and verification of records, the land was found to be a public

pathway under Category 6(2), BEG and Centre, Roorkee, has not produced any credible material to establish that such use poses a security threat or operational hindrance.

10. The learned counsel for the State submits that the earlier proceedings in Case No.8 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Commandant, BEG and Centre, also confirmed that Khasra No.710 (earlier Khasra No.188 and 151) is a public pathway and never acquired or rested in the Army by any lawful process. Hence, the place of ownership or inclusive possession by Army is untenable. He further submits that the Original Suit No.157 of 2012, Kallu Singh Vs. Union of India, relied upon by the applicant concerned a different canal passage and has no nexus with the present land. He further argues that land acquired for the Amry totals 648.90 hectares, whereas Khasra No.710 lies outside that area. Therefore the impugned order merely protects public access over a recorded pathway and does not infringe any military or private right.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent adopt the submissions and reasoning advanced by learned counsel for State and submits that the action of BEG and Centre in digging trenches and obstructing passage over Kahsra No.710 amounts to illegal encroachment and public nuisance.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, after due inquiry and site inspection, has already recorded a categorical finding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. that Khasra No.710 is a public pathway and that the trenches and obstructions raised by BEG and Centre

is unjustifiably restrict public access.

13. In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State and the respondent, the applicant vehemently denies the claim that Khasra No.710 is a public pathway (Gauhar Rasta). It is submitted that as per Notification No.10/4/g/o and LA dated 07.08.1948 issued by Ministry of Defence, the land in-question forms an integral part of A-1 defence land, which is under absolute control and management of Union of India.

14. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the boundary pillars of A-1 Defence Land are physically demarcated and correspond with Survey of India Maps, wherein Khasra No.710 falls within the BEG's boundary. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel that proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against defence land, which is a Central Government property.

15. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision filed by the Bengal Engineering Group and Centre, Roorkee, lacks merit. It is evident from the record that Khasra No.710 admeasuring 0.3590 hectare, continues to stand recorded in the revenue records as "gauhar raasta" (public pathway) under Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and there is no material to show that its clarification has been altered or that the land was validly acquired by the Army. The Court also notes that the pathway has been in longstanding public use and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. acted within jurisdiction to ensure unobstructed

access over a public pathway. The BEG and Centre contention of security risk remains vague and unsubstantiated, as no credible report or intelligence has been produced to demonstrate imminent danger arising from civilian use of this land.

16. Further reliance on earlier litigation including Original Suit No.157 of 2012, Kallu Singh Vs. Union of India, is misplaced as those proceedings pertained to a water canal and have no bearing on the present dispute concerning the pathway. The total defence land acquired as per official records, amounts to 648.90 acres and the disputed Khasra No.710 lies outside this notified defence land. In these circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish either ownership, possession or careful control over the disputed land, and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Joint Magistrate do not infringe upon any lawful rights of the Army.

17. Accordingly C482 application is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.10.2025 SK