Land Not Found To Be Forest Land: Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses PIL Against Construction Of 'Sainya Dham' War Memorial

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the construction of a war memorial, namely 'Sainya Dham' in Dehradun, holding that the land in question was not found to be forest land in a joint survey conducted by revenue and forest authorities. The Court observed that once the competent authorities had inspected the land and certified that it does not form part of forest land, the very basis of the challenge raised in the petition did not survive, rendering the ground legally unsustainable.

A Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay declined to interfere with the project and dismissed the writ petition.

The petitioner, an advocate practicing in Dehradun, approached the High Court alleging that the State Government was proceeding with the construction of a war memorial at Guniyal Gaon without first ascertaining the true nature of the land.

According to the petitioner, the land over which the memorial was being constructed formed part of forest land and, therefore, could not be put to non-forest use without prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. On this premise, a series of reliefs were sought, including a direction to halt construction, transfer the land to the Forest Department, and initiate action in relation to alleged illegal diversion and encroachment of forest land. Moreover, issuance of a CBI probe or constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe into the matter was also prayed for.

Opposing the petition, the Advocate General placed reliance on a joint survey report carried out by revenue as well as forest authorities. The report, which formed part of the record, was signed by officials including the Forest Range Officer, Forester, Revenue Sub-Inspector, and the Tehsildar of the concerned area.

The joint inspection report recorded that the land in question was not part of forest land. It was also noted therein that the forest authorities had no objection to the allotment of the land for the purpose of construction of the war memorial.

It was further submitted by the Advocate General that the construction of the memorial had commenced in 2021 and was almost complete, with inauguration expected in the near future.

Taking note of the joint inspection report placed on record, the Court observed that the land had been duly inspected by both revenue and forest authorities, and a categorical finding had been recorded that it was not forest land.

In such circumstances, the Court held that the principal ground on which the writ petition was founded, namely, that forest land was being diverted for non-forest use, was not borne out from the record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the High Court held that there was no scope for interference in the matter.

“Having regard to facts and circumstances as mentioned above, this Court do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Since forest authorities have inspected land and certified that it is not part of forest land, therefore, ground taken by petitioner for challenging construction of war memorial is legally unsustainable. Thus, there is no scope for interference”, the Court held.

Observing that the challenge was legally unsustainable in light of the survey findings, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name: Vikesh Singh Negi v State of Uttarakhand and Ors

Case No.: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 9 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order