Uttarakhand HC directs Army to give way to villagers upholding their right to pathway in Roorkee

DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by the Bengal Engineering Group and Centre (BEG Centre) located in the Roorkee Cantonment area, ruling in favour of the villagers.

According to the case, a long-standing dispute over a pathway was ongoing between residents of Bhangeri village in Roorkee and the BEG Centre. The BEG installed a gate on the path leading from the cantonment. However, the court held that the disputed khasra number 710 was recorded in revenue records as a public pathway, and obstructing people's movement on it was not justified. The case was heard on Friday by a single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit.The petition was filed by BEG Centre challenging the May 30, 2023, judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and the July 26, 2022, order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Roorkee. The SDM, acting under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed BEG to remove the gate from the public pathway. BEG Centre claimed that the entire disputed land was part of 'A-1 Defence Land' and was used for military training; therefore, civilian entry was restricted.

BEG Centre's lawyer argued that the civil court already dismissed the villagers' rights over this land, and the SDM had no authority to reopen the ownership issue under Section 133. They also stated that two alternative roads were already provided to the villagers. Meanwhile, lawyers for the state and villagers emphasised that khasra number 710 (area 0.3590 hectares) was recorded as "rasta" under Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and its classification was never changed.After considering arguments from both sides and facts on record, Justice Purohit held that the disputed khasra number 710 was still recorded as a public pathway in revenue records, and the army could not present any credible material to prove that it acquired this land through valid procedure or that civilian movement posed any immediate security threat.The court also clarified that the cases previously filed by BEG Centre (Kallu Singh versus Union of India) were related to a water canal route, which had no connection with the present disputed pathway. Additionally, according to official records, the disputed khasra number 710 was located outside the total 648.90 acres of acquired defence land. Under these circumstances, the court held that the SDM acted within his jurisdiction to ensure unobstructed access to the public pathway.

On this basis, the HC dismissed BEG's petition.