Have Respect For Those Who Sacrificed Lives For Nation: Supreme Court Rebukes Advocate For Challenging Construction Of War Memorial

The Supreme Court rebuked a Dehradun-based advocate who attempted to stall the construction of the ‘Sainya Dham’ war memorial in District Dehradun. 

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed, "The High Court has dealt with the Petitioner lightly by merely dismissing the writ petition. The person who has no respect for the war heroes who have made supreme sacrifices for the country should not have been allowed to enter the High Court premises. The Petitioner has approached the Court with dirty hands...No sooner we will dismiss the Special Leave Petition with the exemplary cost, the Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and permitted to withdraw the petition. Dismissed as withdrawn."

The Petitioner claimed to be an advocate practicing at Dehradun. According to him, the State Government is constructing a war memorial in the name and style of ‘Sainya Dham’ at Guniyal Gaon, Pargana Pachhuwa Doon, District Dehradun, without ascertaining true nature of the land. It is alleged that the land over which the war memorial is proposed to be constructed is forest land; therefore, it cannot be used for any other purpose.

The counsel for the Petitioner submitted, "Once a land which is recorded as a forest land...it cannot be converted into..."

Justice Kant said, "You must have taken possession of the Land...you must have grabbed this land...those who have sacrificed their lives for the nation atleast have some respect for them."

Justice Kant sternly remarked, "We will issue show cause notice against them...let them come and tell at whose instance they are filing such petitions."

The Counsel then submitted that the petition has been filed by an Advocate, and the war memorial is also not properly constructed there.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "These are all mischievously designed writ petitions...you want us to put cost...how much cost? Somebody who has vulturous eyes on this land and somebody who is a land grabber, who is sitting there, he must be one of them or his close relative or family member...Shame on you, you have a problem with the construction of the war memorial."

Before the High Court, the Advocate General, on behalf of the State, highlighted a joint survey report which was done by Revenue as well as Forest authorities, and it is signed by the Forest Range Officer, Raipur Range and Forester, Rajpur Section, besides the Revenue Sub-Inspector and Tehsildar of the concerned area. In the said Joint Inspection Report, it was mentioned that the land in question, over which the war memorial is being constructed, is not part of forest land and, in fact, it is mentioned therein that Forest authorities do not have any objection to the allotment of land for the construction of the war memorial.

The High Court had ordered, "Having regard to facts and circumstances as mentioned above, this Court do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Since forest authorities have inspected land and certified that it is not part of forest land, therefore, ground taken by petitioner for challenging construction of war memorial is legally unsustainable. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed."

Cause Title: Vikesh Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [SLP(C) No.8074/2026]