The Uttarakhand High Court has held that land cannot be temporarily acquired under Section 81 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 without giving prior notice for a reasonable time. The Court observed that a person may not be divested of the use of his own land without following the due process of law.
Justice Ravindra Maithani was hearing two writ petitions filed by M/s Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd., which had been operating a helipad for the Shri Hemkund Sahibji Helicopter Yatra. On 23 May 2024, the helipad was temporarily acquired by the State under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The petitions challenged the temporary acquisition of the helipad.
The petitioner submitted that there was no public purpose involved in the acquisition, that the respondents had misused authority without following due process, that the acquisition was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Act as no notices were issued, and that the acquisition defied mandatory legal provisions and principles of natural justice.
The Court first held that the petitioner was a 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 3(x) of the 2013 Act. It noted that although the lease deed was not registered, it was admissible for the purpose of possession of the helipad. The Court characterised this as a collateral purpose.
The Court emphasised that when an act is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other. It reiterated that a person may not be divested of the use of his own land without following due process of law.
While agreeing that notice need not be in detail, the Court held that prior notice must be given before temporary acquisition. It noted that Section 81(2) of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to give written notice to the person interested in the land, specifying the purpose for which the land is needed, its term, and the materials to be taken therefrom.
Regarding the May 23, 2024 acquisition, the Court held that no notice as stipulated under Section 81(2) of the 2013 Act was given before the temporary acquisition of the helipad. The communication made by respondent no. 4/UCADA to respondent no. 6 Kishore Singh Panwar was not in conformity with Section 81(2). The communication did not specify the terms and only sought approval, with one day being given for response. By 21 May 2024 till 12:00 noon, a response was required from respondent no. 6 by respondent no. 4/UCADA. The Court questioned whether someone's land could be acquired within a twenty-four-hour notice, stating it amounted to forcing a person to accord consent. Acquisition was made on 23 May 2024.
As regards the June 27, 2025 acquisition, the Court noted that admittedly no notice was given prior to the acquisition. It held that informing on June 28, 2025 that the helipad had been temporarily acquired on June 27, 2025 was not sufficient compliance with Section 81(2), as notice was required to be given prior to acquisition.
The Court, allowing the petition, quashed the temporary acquisition orders and directed the District Magistrate, Chamoli to restore control and possession of the helipad to the petitioner.
The case is titled M/s Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2025 (MS) & Writ Petition No. 1401 of 2024 (MS)].