Haldwani Railway Land Encroachment: SC Judge Recuses from Hearing

Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has recused himself from hearing a matter in which the apex court had previously stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s directive to clear encroachments from 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing before a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

“List before a bench of which one of us (Justice Dhulia) is not a member,” the bench stated, refraining from providing a reason for the recusal.

On May 2, the Supreme Court affirmed that its interim order staying the high court’s December 20, 2022 directions would remain in force throughout the duration of the pending appeals.

“The interim order(s) is made absolute during the pendency of the appeals,” the apex court had noted in its May 2 order.

In an interim order issued on January 5, the Supreme Court had stayed the high court’s mandate for the eviction of encroachments on 29 acres of land, characterizing it as a “human issue” and asserting that displacing 50,000 individuals overnight is untenable.

The railways contend that there are 4,365 encroachers on the land. The occupants had earlier organized protests in Haldwani, asserting their rightful ownership of the land. Over 4,000 families, comprising almost 50,000 individuals, primarily from the Muslim community, reside on the disputed land.

During the May proceedings, the apex court had inquired of the lawyers representing the railways and the state government about the expected timeframe to arrive at a resolution.

The court had noted that the government’s counsel had indicated ongoing efforts to promptly devise a reasonable solution.

In its December 20, 2022 order, the high court had decreed the demolition of structures on allegedly encroached railway land in Banbhoolpura, Haldwani.

The high court had stipulated that a week’s notice be extended to the encroachers before initiating the demolition.

In their plea, the residents contended that the high court had committed a serious error by issuing the impugned order, despite being apprised of the fact that proceedings regarding the residents’ title, including that of the petitioners, were pending before the district magistrate. The area encompassing 29 acres of land in Banbhoolpura is home to religious sites, schools, businesses, and residences.

The petitioners asserted the validity of their documents, which purportedly establish their ownership and lawful occupation.