The Uttarakhand High Court set aside two temporary acquisition orders affecting a privately-operated helipad, holding that the State failed to give the statutory notice required under Section 81(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that the leaseholder, even under an unregistered lease, qualifies as a "person interested".
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd., has been operating the Shri Hemkund Sahibji Helicopter Shuttles since 2011. To facilitate the service, it leased land from respondents nos. 6 to 11 and constructed a helipad at Govind Ghat, Tehsil Joshimath, Chamoli district. The State of Uttarakhand temporarily acquired the helipad on two occasions - 23 May 2024 and 27 June 2025 - invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). The petitioner challenged both acquisitions before the High Court.
Key Facts
- 24 Jan 2014: Registered lease deed executed between petitioner and respondents nos. 6-11, valid till 31 Mar 2024.
- 31 Mar 2024: Original lease expired; petitioner continued possession.
- 05 Oct 2021: Unregistered lease deed executed extending lease till 31 Mar 2027 (not registered).
- 20 May 2024: Petitioner's request for approval sent to respondent no. 6 (Kishore Singh Panwar); no response.
- 23 May 2024: District Magistrate, Chamoli, issued a temporary acquisition order under Section 81 of the 2013 Act and, with the Tehsildar, forcibly took possession of the helipad.
- 24 May 2024: Petition filed a police complaint at Govind Ghat Police Station.
- 27 Jun 2025: A second temporary acquisition order was issued by the District Magistrate.
- 15 Jul 2025: Respondent no. 4 (UCADA) stated that the helipad had been further acquired on 10 Jun 2025.
- 03 Jun 2024 & 05 Jun 2024: Sub-Registrar communicated that no registered lease existed beyond 31 Mar 2024.
- 05 Jun 2024: UCADA inquired about the lease; learned that only an unregistered deed existed.
- 15 Jun 2024: Petition filed Writ Petition No. 1401 of 2024.
- 05 Jun 2025: Interim application filed by respondents nos. 6-11.
- 28 Mar 2025: Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2025 filed challenging the second acquisition.
Procedural History
- 15 Jun 2024: WP No. 1401 of 2024 filed.
- 23 May 2024: First temporary acquisition order issued.
- 27 Jun 2025: Second temporary acquisition order issued.
- 15 Jul 2025: Statement by UCADA that helipad had been further acquired on 10 Jun 2025.
- 05 Jun 2025: Interim application (IA No. 6 of 2025) by respondents nos. 6-11.
- 28 Mar 2025: WP No. 2511 of 2025 filed.
- 20 Aug 2026: Judgment delivered.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that the State violated Section 81(2) by not issuing a proper written notice before temporary acquisition; contends that it is a "person interested" under Section 3(x) despite the lease being unregistered; seeks restoration of possession, quashing of acquisition orders, and compensation at market rates.
- Respondent No. 3 (District Magistrate): Claims the acquisition was lawful under Section 81(2) for the Char-Dham Yatra, asserting that notice was not required and that the petitioner lacks locus standi because the lease extension was unregistered.
- Respondent No. 4 (UCADA): Maintains that the acquisition was for public purpose, that notice was served, and that the petitioner is not a person interested.
- Respondents Nos. 6-11: Submit that the lease was extended (unregistered) and that they had paid advance rent; argue that the petitioner’s possession is not in dispute.
Relief Sought
- Quash the temporary acquisition orders dated 23 May 2024 and 27 June 2025.
- Direct the District Magistrate to restore control and possession of the helipad within fifteen days.
- Award compensation calculated at the market rate for landing as per Helipad Policy 2023-24 or the 2018 Landing Charges Rate List.
- Any other relief deemed appropriate.
The Legal Issue
What is the correct interpretation of the notice requirement under Section 81(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for a temporary acquisition, and does an unregistered lease deed confer the status of "person interested" on the leaseholder under Section 3(x) of the same Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The State failed to serve a written notice in compliance with Section 81(2); the communication dated 20 May 2024 was not a statutory notice.
- An unregistered lease can still establish possession and therefore qualifies the petitioner as a "person interested" under Section 3(x).
- Cites Bimal Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar and Mankeshwar Nath v. Collector, Agra for the necessity of notice and the right to be heard.
- Relies on Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) v. State of Karnataka to argue that a company can be a person interested.
For the Respondent
- Argues that temporary acquisition under Section 81 does not require a detailed notice; the purpose of the Char-Dham Yatra justifies immediate possession.
- Maintains that the petitioner, being a corporate entity, does not fall within the definition of "person interested" under Section 3(x).
- Relies on Brij Behari Sahai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas v. State of Gujarat to contend that title is irrelevant for temporary occupation.
- Claims that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 51 of the 2013 Act and therefore the writ jurisdiction is barred.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the language of Section 81(2), which expressly requires the Collector to give written notice to the person interested before the temporary occupation. The Court held that the communication dated 20 May 2024 was a mere request for consent and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of a notice that specifies the purpose, term, and compensation details. The Court quoted the provision:
"The Collector shall give notice in writing to the person interested in such land of the purpose for which the same is needed, and the term..."
The Court then turned to the definition of "person interested" in Section 3(x). It observed that the provision lists persons claiming an interest in compensation, tenancy rights, and those whose livelihood is affected. The Court interpreted that a leaseholder, even under an unregistered lease, enjoys a tenancy right and therefore falls within the definition. Relying on Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan and Bimal Kumar Shah, the Court rejected the State’s contention that a corporate entity cannot be a person interested.
Next, the Court distinguished the earlier authorities cited by the respondents. In Brij Behari Sahai, the Supreme Court dealt with temporary occupation where title was untouched, but the present case involved a temporary acquisition that deprives the leaseholder of possession, invoking the notice requirement. The Court also noted that Patel Shambhubhai dealt with the 1894 Act, which, although analogous, cannot override the explicit procedural safeguards in the 2013 Act.
The Court addressed the argument that an alternate statutory remedy under Section 51 barred the writ. Citing Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Bali Ram v. Union of India, the Court affirmed that the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude the High Court’s jurisdiction where fundamental procedural rights, such as notice, are violated.
Finally, the Court considered the unregistered lease deed. While acknowledging that an unregistered instrument cannot create a title, it held that for the purpose of establishing possession - a collateral purpose - the deed is admissible. Hence, the petitioner’s possession was lawful, and the State’s acquisition was illegal.
The Verdict
The Court quashed both temporary acquisition orders dated 23 May 2024 and 27 June 2025. It directed the District Magistrate, Chamoli, to restore control and possession of the helipad at Govind Ghat, Tehsil Joshimath, within fifteen days and to submit a compliance report. The Court further ordered compensation to be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the market rate for landing as per the Helipad Policy 2023-24 or the 2018 Landing Charges Rate List.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Mandatory for Temporary Acquisition
- Practitioners must ensure that a written notice complying with Section 81(2) is served before any temporary occupation. Failure to do so renders the acquisition void.
- The notice must specify the purpose, duration, and compensation details; informal communications do not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Unregistered Lease Can Confer "Person Interested" Status
- A leaseholder, even under an unregistered lease, is deemed a "person interested" under Section 3(x) when the lease creates a tenancy right.
- This status entitles the leaseholder to notice and the right to be heard before any acquisition.
Writ Jurisdiction Persists Despite Alternate Remedies
- The existence of a statutory remedy under the 2013 Act does not bar a writ petition where fundamental procedural safeguards are breached.
- Courts may still entertain writs to enforce natural justice and constitutional rights.
Take-away for practitioners:
- Verify compliance with Section 21 and Section 81(2) before advising clients on temporary acquisition matters.
- Preserve any lease documentation, even if unregistered, to establish interest.
- Be prepared to invoke writ jurisdiction when notice or due process is ignored.
