Sonam Wangchuk’s institute gets notice from Ladakh admin for continuing classes at school

The notice responds to HIAL’s continuation of classes and other activities at Desert Flower School, Phyang, without what the administration calls proper consent, clearances, or approvals. It matters because the land allotment supporting HIAL is already under challenge in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

The Leh Tehsildar sent the notice to school authorities. It directs them to maintain the status quo. It also advises HIAL not to take any action that advances the institution’s functioning or starts activities while the court considers the petition. The administration says this is necessary to avoid prejudicing the dispute.

For now, HIAL must pause further steps connected with functioning and commencement of activities, unless the court finally decides the matter or issues other directions. The notice does not itself decide whether the land cancellation was lawful. That question remains pending before the High Court.

HIAL stands for the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives. The article identifies it as an institute associated with activist Sonam Wangchuk and says his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, is its CEO. Desert Flower School is a school operating under the HIAL Ecosystem at Phyang.

The immediate issue was not simply the existence of the school. The administration objected to HIAL commencing classes and other activities there without proper consent, clearances, or necessary approval from concerned authorities. The notice was sent through the Leh Tehsildar to authorities at the school.

Those activities are now tied to the land dispute. The administration cancelled the allotment of 1,076 kanals at Phyang Thang, while Wangchuk challenged that cancellation in court. Until the High Court decides the petition or gives further directions, HIAL has been advised not to advance the school’s functioning or commence further activities.

The administration had allotted 1,076 kanals of land at Phyang Thang for HIAL. The proposed lease period was 40 years. These figures show the scale and long-term nature of the arrangement at the centre of the dispute.

The allotment was not described as an unconditional transfer. The administration told the High Court that the sanction to grant the lease was conditional. HIAL therefore had to meet specified requirements before the lease could be executed, including payment of premium ground rent and starting a university, according to the administration’s court response.

The administration later cancelled the allotment in August 2025. It argued that HIAL had not met the lease conditions within the first year and had not used the land for its allotted purpose. Sonam Wangchuk challenged that cancellation through a writ petition, so the proposed 40-year lease remains part of a live court dispute.

“Sub judice” is a legal term meaning that a matter is before a court and has not yet been finally decided. Here, Wangchuk’s writ petition challenges the August 2025 cancellation of HIAL’s land allotment. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is still considering that dispute.

Maintaining the status quo means preserving the existing position while the court hears the case. The notice therefore tells HIAL not to take action that advances the functioning or commencement of activities at the site. The administration says such action could prejudice the matter before judgment.

This order does not settle who is right. It is an interim restraint while adjudication continues. HIAL has been advised to wait until the High Court finally decides the petition or issues further directions. The court’s eventual decision will determine what happens to the challenged cancellation and related activities.

According to the Ladakh administration’s court response, the land sanction was conditional rather than automatic. HIAL had to comply with the lease requirements before the proposed lease could be executed. The administration specifically identified payment of premium ground rent as one condition.

It also said HIAL had to fulfil the conditions within the first year of allotment. The land was expected to be used for the purpose for which it was allotted. Another stated condition was that a university should be started. The administration said there was no proof that this had happened.

The administration therefore argued that the lease lapsed in May this year because the conditions were not completed. Angmo disputed that account. She said HIAL had applied for the lease in May 2018, and that officials later cited an unfinished lease policy while allowing construction to continue. The court must assess these competing claims.

A confirmed cancellation would leave HIAL without the allotment it challenged as the foundation for its planned activities at Phyang. That could affect classes, construction, and the proposed university because the administration said the land was allotted for a specific purpose and required a university to be started.

The article gives a concrete warning sign: the administration says the lease lapsed in May after conditions were not met, and says the land was not used for its allotted purpose. It also says there was no proof that a university had begun. Those claims support the administration’s position that HIAL could not proceed as planned.

The precise consequence remains undecided. The article does not report a final order cancelling classes or demolishing construction. For now, the notice asks HIAL to maintain the status quo. The High Court’s decision will determine whether the cancellation stands and what activities can continue.

A land lease is an agreement allowing a person or institution to use land for a specified period under stated terms. Ownership normally remains with the lessor. In this case, the proposed arrangement would have allowed HIAL to use public land at Phyang Thang for 40 years.

Governments can impose conditions because public land is being made available for a defined public or institutional purpose. Conditions may cover payment, the period for compliance, and how the land must be used. Here, the administration cited premium ground rent and the requirement to start a university. It also said the land had to serve its allotted purpose.

If conditions are not met, the government may argue that the lease should not take effect or should lapse. That is the administration’s position here. HIAL disputes parts of it, saying officials delayed the lease policy and permitted construction. The High Court will decide the contested legal questions.