[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Govind Ballabh Pant National vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
01.04.2026 WPMS No. 2675 of 2024
Govind Ballabh Pant National
Institute Of Himalayan Environment --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. Ms. Snigdha Tiwari and Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Y.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent
no. 5.
4. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no. 8.
5. Mr. Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for
respondent no. 9.
Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 09/2026)
6. The instant application by respondent no. 8 is
essentially for keeping the adverse directions, contained in
order dated 30.12.2025 passed by this Court, in
abeyance, and to stay the operation of the notice dated
20.02.2026 issued by SDM, Sadar, Almora, till the
pendency of the present Writ Petition. The present Writ
Petition is at the behest of an autonomous Institute,
established under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India. It is alleged that
various lands of the petitioner-Institute are under
encroachment, inter alia, by respondent no. 8. The
petitioner has sought enforcement of a Resolution passed
by a Committee, comprising of its own officials, based on
a Joint Inspection, held on various dates, on direction of
District Magistrate, to identify the encroachments. It
identifies the alleged encroachments made by the private
respondents
7. It appears that, initially, the Writ Petition was filed
before a learned Single Judge. On 16.10.2024, the learned
Single Judge, after noticing that WPPIL No. 117/2023, on
the subject of encroachment of forest land and river
banks, is pending before this Court, directed the instant
Petition to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for the
matter being placed before the Division Bench, along with
WPPIL No. 117/2023. This is how the instant matter came
to be placed before a Division Bench thereafter.
8. On 09.06.2025, this Court directed the SSP and SDM
to remain present on the next date. On 23.06.2025, the
SDM, who appeared in pursuance of the previous order,
was directed to intimate the private parties about the
pendency of the Writ Petition, and further direction was
issued that no construction shall be made on the disputed
portion of land.
9. On 30.12.2025, the Court took notice of Joint
Inspection Report, according to which, there were
encroachments made by the private respondents, over the
land of the Institute, and based on the same, direction
was issued to ADM and Circle Officer, Almora, who were
present before the Court, to continue with the action
already taken, and further that, in case there is no license
for running the hotel, or no building plan for construction
of Resort/ Hotel/ Restaurant, then the authority shall take
action, as mandated under the laws. The District
Administration was also directed to submit a compliance
report. It appears that, in pursuance of the aforesaid
order, the SDM, Sadar, Almora issued a notice to
respondent no. 8, stating that Tehsildar, Almora, Naib-
Tehsildar, Almora, Revenue Inspector, Hawalbagh and
Revenue Sub-Inspector, Katarmal have re-inspected the
site on 19.02.2026, and have found encroachments over
various lands. The notice further states that respondent
no. 8 should remove the encroachments within 15 days, in
compliance of order of this Court dated 30.12.2025, failing
which the same would be demolished, and the amount
spent in this behalf shall be recovered from respondent
no. 8, as arrears of land revenue.
10. Respondent nos. 5 & 9 have also filed similar
applications, praying for similar reliefs.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the private
respondents.
12. Learned counsel for the private respondents have
taken us through the Inspection Report dated 19.02.2026,
and also the previous Joint Inspection Report, and it is
contended on their behalf that all of them hold valid titles,
in respect of different Khet Numbers. The submission is
that the Joint Inspection Reports are incorrect and have
been submitted without carrying out proper survey.
13. We have also been taken through the title
documents, and the specific averments made in the
Supplementary Counter Affidavits, and other affidavits
filed by the private respondents, to impress that the road,
which is alleged to be an encroachment, was constructed,
on basis of permission given by SDM, from MLA Fund. The
submission is that it cannot be made a ground to demolish
the constructions, which according to the respondents
exist over the land belonging to the private respondents.
In alternative, it has also been submitted on behalf of
respondent no. 8, that major part of the land owned by
respondent no. 8 is still lying vacant, and in case, in any
duly instituted proceedings, it is ultimately held that there
is any encroachment, respondent no. 8 is ready and
willing to offer his land in exchange.
14. It is not disputed before us that various permanent
constructions of private respondents exist over the land in
dispute. It is also not disputed that the entire claim of the
petitioner is based on Joint Inspection Reports, and those
reports were called for by the Administrative Authorities,
in exercise of their administrative powers, and not in any
duly instituted proceedings. The private respondents
claim title over the land over which their constructions
exist. It has also come on record that respondent no. 8
has already filed an application, under Section 41 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for demarcation of the
holding belonging to it, but the said application is still
pending.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts, we, hereby, provide
that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be
taken against the private respondents, in pursuance of the
notice issued to them, on basis of the previous order of
this Court dated 30.12.2025.
16. At this stage, we may note the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has
requested the SDM concerned to initiate proceedings
against the private respondents, under the provisions of
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1971, but the SDM concerned has not taken any
action on basis of the said application, and this compelled
the petitioner to approach this Court by way of instant
Writ Petition.
17. As the learned counsel for the petitioner could not
point out to any such application, which is part of the
record, therefore, as prayed by her, we grant liberty to the
petitioner to bring on record any such application filed by
the petitioner, by means of a supplementary affidavit, so
that the same is taken into consideration on the next date.
18. Learned State Counsel shall also obtain instructions,
that in case provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are applicable, then
who would be the Estate Officer for initiating proceedings,
for eviction of unauthorised occupants, over the land of
the Institute.
19. List this case, along with connected cases, on
29.04.2026.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
01.04.2026 01.04.2026
Rahul
