Forest panel rejects Uttarakhand HC relocation plan again over forest land concerns

The Regional Empowered Committee rejected Uttarakhand’s plan to divert 30 hectares of reserved forest land for a new High Court complex at Lamachaur. This does not end the relocation proposal, but it blocks the current forest-clearance route. The panel found that the State had not adequately examined non-forest alternatives.

The committee also identified gaps in the proposal’s site-specific justification, documents, layout plans and wildlife safeguards. The proposed site near Belbaba Temple lies in the Bhakhra Range of the Tarai Central Forest Division. Construction would require 123 trees to be felled, and the area might contain an elephant corridor.

The panel directed Uttarakhand to explore suitable non-forest land before seeking forest clearance again. It also sought clarity about the legal status of the High Court’s existing Nainital land. The decision is the second setback after the Gaulapar proposal was rejected in January 2024.

A reserved forest is forest land placed under strong legal protection by the government. Activities such as clearing trees or changing the land’s use are restricted. The article does not define the term, but this general legal meaning explains why the Lamachaur proposal needs official approval.

A court complex would require construction, roads, services and space for people. At Lamachaur, the project would also require felling 123 trees on 30 hectares near Belbaba Temple. Because these actions would alter reserved forest land, Uttarakhand must seek permission through the forest-clearance process.

The Environment Ministry panel found that the State had not adequately examined non-forest alternatives. It therefore rejected the current proposal and directed officials to look for suitable land outside forests first. The decision shows that public infrastructure needs must be weighed against legal forest protections and wildlife concerns.

The proposed High Court complex at Lamachaur would affect 30 hectares of reserved forest land. The area is near Belbaba Temple and falls within the Bhakhra Range of the Tarai Central Forest Division. This scale matters because the project would change the use of protected forest land for a large public building.

The proposal specifically includes the felling of 123 trees. The Environment Ministry’s panel reviewed this impact along with the project’s documents, layout plans and wildlife protection measures. It also raised the possibility that the site lies within an elephant corridor, adding another environmental concern.

The project cannot move ahead through the proposed forest site under the panel’s current decision. Uttarakhand must first explore suitable non-forest land and provide stronger justification if it continues seeking approval. The figures describe the direct land and tree impacts identified in the proposal.

The panel required an examination of non-forest sites because the Lamachaur proposal did not show that forest land was the only suitable option. Its decision said the State had submitted a specific forest site without sufficient justification about the alternatives considered. That gap weakened the request for forest clearance.

The proposed project would divert 30 hectares of reserved forest and fell 123 trees. The panel also questioned the site’s documentation, layout plans and wildlife safeguards. It noted a possible elephant corridor and asked for clarity about the legal status of the existing High Court land in Nainital.

The committee’s direction creates a different next step for Uttarakhand. Officials must search for suitable non-forest land before pursuing clearance for Lamachaur. The panel also pointed out that non-forest land could be identified for compensatory plantations, strengthening its question about why the court complex could not use similar land.

Removing 123 trees would reduce vegetation at the proposed site and could eliminate shelter, food sources or nesting spaces for forest animals. Building a court complex could also replace connected habitat with structures, roads and regular human activity. These are general environmental effects; the article itself specifically records the tree count and wildlife concerns.

The panel flagged the possibility of an elephant corridor near the site. If elephants use the area to move between habitats, construction could obstruct or disturb that movement. Such disruption can increase the chance of animals entering nearby human-use areas, although the article does not report that this has already happened at Lamachaur.

These risks explain why the committee sought stronger wildlife protection measures and better project documentation. Uttarakhand must first explore non-forest land. If it continues with Lamachaur, it would need to address the possible corridor, tree loss and other environmental concerns during the approval process.

Compensatory afforestation generally means creating or restoring forest through plantations to compensate for forest land diverted for a project. The article reports that Uttarakhand proposed plantations across 60 hectares, costing more than ₹3.68 crore. This arrangement is intended to address some effects of forest diversion, but it does not make the original forest impact disappear.

The panel noticed that the State could identify non-forest land for compensatory plantations. It therefore questioned why non-forest land could not also be identified for the court complex. The comparison focused on the project’s choice of land: forest would be cleared for construction while other land was being considered for plantations.

The committee directed Uttarakhand to explore a suitable non-forest site before seeking forest clearance. This keeps the relocation proposal under consideration but rejects the current route through Lamachaur. A different site could reduce the need to divert reserved forest and avoid the proposal’s tree-felling and wildlife concerns.

The High Court wants to move because its existing Nainital premises lack space for the growing number of staff and members of the Bar. The court’s representative also cited the sharp rise in pending cases, from around 4,000 in 2010 to more than 64,000 currently. A larger complex is presented as necessary to manage this growth.

The relocation case also includes practical difficulties for people using the court. Litigants face high accommodation costs in Nainital. The town is a major tourist destination, and frequent traffic congestion can make travel and daily court work more difficult. These pressures support the proposal for a different site.

The move remains uncertain because the Lamachaur plan was rejected by the Environment Ministry panel. Earlier, a Gaulapar proposal was rejected in January 2024 after it would have required felling 4,238 trees and included residential construction. Uttarakhand must now search for another suitable site.