2025:UHC:9185-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (PIL) No. 213 of 2023 13th October, 2025 Arun Kumar -------Petitioner Versus State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and others -----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel for the respondent-SIDCUL Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Ms. Rajni Supiyal Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGEMENT : (per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.) The petitioner has filed present Writ Petition with the following prayers: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to immediately restore the position of the green areas/golf course as stipulated in the initial master plan. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to conduct an in depth enquiry into the allotment of green areas in the master plan for industrial/residential use without the permission 1 2025:UHC:9185-DB of the MOEF Government of India and the State Pollution Control Board and to punish the officers responsible for such illegal allotment. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to realize the cost of restoration and the loss caused to SIDCUL on account of restoration of the plots to their original condition from the salaries of the erring officials. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (SIDCUL) has developed 07 Integrated Industrial Estates (IIE) at Pant Nagar, Haridwar, Dehradun, Selaqui, Kotdwar, Sitarganj and Kashipur after approval from the competent authorities including the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Pollution Control Board, Uttarakhand and the Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand; that SIDCUL came up with IIE, Haridwar with the intention to augment industrial growth owing to its convenient connectivity to the Delhi, NCR Region and in doing so the IIE, Haridwar was set up adjacent to Rajaji National Park and the Shivalik Ranges; that in the initial master plan circulated by SIDCUL large areas were earmarked as green areas and part of the green area was to be utilized for the purposes of establishing a golf course. The Industrial Units were allotted plots in IIE, SIDCUL on the said master plan and, in fact, a proposal was made to the investors for providing them the necessary green areas and public amenities in the Industrial Estates; that soon after the initial setting up of the SIDCUL, Haridwar, the SIDCUL gave up its 2 2025:UHC:9185-DB commitment for environmental protection and slowly over time converted the land use of the green areas into commercial/industrial and residential use without any permission whatsoever from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, State Pollution Board, Uttarakhand and Estate Forest Department. 3. Learned counsel for the SIDCUL submitted that a large portion of the land transferred to the SIDCUL for development of the Industrial Estate, Haridwar is still under the possession of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). The said portion of the land is under litigation with BHEL since 2012 and at present is pending consideration in Writ Petition No. 1358 of 2013 (M/S) before this Hon’ble Court. The major portion of the land shown as “Golf Course” in both initial lay-out/master plan of 2005 as well as the lay out/master plan of 20021, in fact, falls under the same land in dispute with BHEL since as early as 2012. Out of the entire land so depicted as “Golf Course”, the possession of only a small portion of the Golf Course has been handed over SIDCUL. Though, the land stands recorded in the revenue records in the name of SIDCUL, physical possession of the greater part has never been transferred, and the matter remains contested. 4. He also refers to the application no. 8 of 2025 filed by SIDCUL and in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, following submissions have been made in Para 5 & 6, which reads as under: 3 2025:UHC:9185-DB “5. That it is most respectfully submitted that since the major part of the proposed Golf Course fell within the area under dispute with BHEL which is being contested, the SIDCUL had completely dropped the proposal of proposed Golf Course. Since the initial master plan envisaged a Golf Course near the southern boundary of the Rajaji National Park and the same was continuing, the master/lay-out plan has been revised and updated to avoid any such confusion. The latest plan clearly delineates the updated position. It is humbly submitted that as shown in the revised and updated master/lay- out plan, 70 meters of land from the periphery of Rajaji National Park in the possession of SIDCUL will remain as green area to abide by the Environmental laws and will not be utilized for any construction whatsoever. 6. That SIDCUL has consistently maintained and will continue to maintain on the land under its possession and control, the requisite green and open spaces strictly in accordance with the prevailing norms/guidelines as required under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand), its regulations and bye-laws read with Environmental Laws.” 5. In reply to the said submissions, the counsel for the petitioner submits that now the respondent nos. 1 and 3 have revised the plan and have made a provision for the “green area”, abutting the Rajaji 4 2025:UHC:9185-DB National Park, and hence he submits that the violation complained of has now been addressed. Hence, the petitioner has no grievance against the implementation of the revised plan. The said submission is placed on record. Respondent nos. 1 & 3 shall ensure that the project is completed in terms of the revised plan, filed along with IA No. 8/2025. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally. (G.NARENDAR, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 13.10.2025 Kaushal 5