The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a challenge to the proposed relocation of the High Court Complex from Nainital to Haldwani, holding that the writ petition was premature as the matter was presently at the stage of identification of land. The Court observed that prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would be required when the stage of de-reservation of forest land or its use for a non-forest purpose arises.

A Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a petition challenging the District Magistrate, Nainital's order dated 14 May 2026 regarding identification of land for relocation of the High Court Complex, as well as the Full Court Resolution dated 19 June 2026. The proposed site comprises approximately 73 hectares of forest land in the Tarai-Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, near Bel Baba Temple.

The petitioner contended that the proposed construction is a non-site-specific/non-forest purpose and, therefore, the forest land cannot be diverted or utilized without complying with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Forest Conservation Rules, 2023 and the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications dated 29 December 2023, as the requisite prior approval of the Central Government had not been obtained. It was also submitted that the proposed site falls within an area having significant ecological importance and forms part of identified elephant corridors, diversion of which would be contrary to the constitutional obligation to protect the environment.

The State submitted that the shifting process was only at the stage of identification of land and that the requisite permissions and clearances would be obtained from the Central Government and the Regional Empowered Committee at the appropriate stage. The Advocate General also submitted that the proposed land was approximately 10 kilometres away from the alleged elephant corridor.

The Deputy Solicitor General for India and the Counsel appearing for the High Court also submitted that the matter was presently only at the stage of identification of land and that the requisite permissions and clearances would be obtained later.

The Court observed that the present writ petition is premature as the matter is at the stage of identification of land, and therefore, prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not required as of now.

“… the said permission can be taken as and when the stage of de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non forest purpose arises. It is nobody's case that forest land has already been de-reserved,” the Court remarked.

The Court further referred to Rule 10 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samwardhan) Rules, 2023, which provides the timeline as well as procedure for de-reservation of land, which shall be followed by Regional Empowered Committee appointed by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change when the appropriate stage arises.

The Court also took judicial notice of the lack of space and infrastructure in Nainital, connectivity issues and the high cost of living there, observing that these factors cause financial burden upon litigants.

“… the Court takes judicial notice of lack of space and infrastructure in small tourist hill town of Nainital; connectivity issues and high cost of living in Nainital which causes extra-ordinary financial burden upon litigants who come from marginalized sections of Society… The high cost of living at Nainital does not promote social and economic justice,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the contention concerning the elephant corridor after noting the submission that the proposed land was 10 kilometres away from the area shown as an elephant corridor.

Hence, the Court held that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage as currently the forest land has not been de-reserved and it has only been identified as being suitable for shifting of High Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Raman Kumar Shah v. High Court of Uttarakhand & Ors. [Writ Petition (M/B) No. 656 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order