-
by sayum
28 August 2026 8:44 AM
"The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — the right to notice" Uttarakhand High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the State cannot bypass mandatory legal procedures for temporary land acquisition under the guise of urgency.
A bench of Hon'ble Justice Ravindra Maithani observed that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) mandates strict adherence to natural justice, even in cases of temporary occupation. The Court quashed the acquisition orders, remarking that "a person may not be divested of the use of his own land without following the due process of law."
Dispute Over Helipad Possession
The petitioner, M/s Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd., had been operating a helipad at Govind Ghat, Chamoli, since 2011, under a lease agreement with private landholders. On May 23, 2024, the District Magistrate, acting under the 2013 Act, forcibly took possession of the helipad for the Shri Hemkund Sahib Yatra. During the pendency of the challenge, the State further extended this temporary acquisition through another order dated June 27, 2025. The petitioner contended that these actions were illegal, conducted without notice, and in total defiance of the mandatory provisions of the 2013 Act.
The primary question before the court was whether the State could invoke the temporary acquisition provisions of the 2013 Act without serving prior notice to the person in possession. The court was also called upon to determine if an unregistered lease deed, which was nonetheless admitted by the parties, sufficiently established the petitioner's locus standi as a "person interested" under Section 3(x) of the 2013 Act. Furthermore, the court examined whether the doctrine of "public purpose" and "urgency" justifies a departure from the procedural requirements of notice and hearing.
Petitioner's Status As Person Interested
The court found that despite the lease deed not being registered, the document and the associated conduct of the parties established the petitioner's rightful possession. The court held that such documents are admissible for collateral purposes, specifically to prove the nature and character of possession. Consequently, the bench concluded that the petitioner clearly falls within the definition of a "person interested" under Section 3(x) of the 2013 Act.
Mandatory Requirement Of Prior Notice
Addressing the State's failure to provide adequate notice, the court emphasized that Section 81 of the 2013 Act is not a mere formality but a statutory safeguard. The communication issued by the authorities provided a window of only twenty-four hours for the landholder to respond, which the court termed as a "force upon a person to accord his consent." The court unequivocally stated that acquisition cannot be sustained when the State fails to demonstrate adherence to the principles of natural justice.
State's Conduct Under Judicial Scrutiny
The bench observed that the action of the Collector in occupying the land without prior notice was a gross violation of the law. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bimal Kumar Shah, the court reiterated that the "swadeshi constitutional fabric" places a heavy duty on the State to inform, hear, and provide reasons before initiating any divestiture of property. The court held that the State cannot benefit from its own procedural illegalities.
"The Collector by his own conduct is estopped from raising such a plea in defence."
The High Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the acquisition orders dated May 23, 2024, and June 27, 2025. The District Magistrate, Chamoli, has been directed to restore the control and possession of the helipad to the petitioner within fifteen days. Additionally, the court ordered that the petitioner be compensated at market rates for landing operations conducted during the period of illegal possession, in accordance with the relevant government policies.
Date of Decision: 20 August 2026
