DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High Court has reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the proposed relocation of the court from Nainital to the Bel Baba area of Haldwani and the alleged earmarking of reserve forest land without mandatory approval from the Union government.
A Division Bench of Senior Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit reserved its judgment after hearing submissions from the petitioners, the state government and other parties.
Lawyers opposing the relocation argued that Uttarakhand was created primarily to promote the development of its hill regions.
“If the High Court has to be relocated from Nainital, it should be shifted to another suitable place in the hills rather than to the plains,” they submitted.
Petitioner Raman Shah, a lawyer and Uttarakhand statehood activist, alleged that a proposal prepared by the Nainital district magistrate to provide reserve forest land near the Bel Baba temple for the High Court violated Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. He sought action against officials allegedly responsible for the violation.
Shah claimed that the district magistrate prepared the land proposal in May 2026 while a stay granted by the Supreme Court was in force.
The petitioners told the court that extensive plantation had been carried out in the identified area and claimed that the site formed part of an elephant corridor. They also cited the Supreme Court's July 15, 2026 order and an Uttarakhand government notification issued on August 12, 2026, saying both recognised the disputed site as forest land.
“Under the stringent provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the power to de-reserve forest land or change its character rests solely with the Central government,” the petitioners argued.
They further submitted that neither the state government nor any other authority could transfer or alter the use of such land without prior central clearance.
Counsel for the state government rejected the allegations and maintained that the relocation process was being carried out according to prescribed rules. The government also rejected the environmental objections and said the proposed site did not fall within an elephant corridor.
The petitioners questioned the government's insistence on Haldwani, arguing that the Supreme Court had directed the authorities to identify suitable land anywhere in Nainital district and asking why other locations had not been considered.
After hearing the rival submissions, the Bench reserved its judgment.
The owner of a leading Nainital hotel told this newspaper that relocating the High Court would benefit the town and tourism.
“Nainital is simply unsuitable for the High Court. The decision to shift it is welcome,” he said.
