[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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/
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
