The Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrates of Haridwar, Uttarakhand and Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh to demarcate the points through which the boundary between these two States exists.

A person named Gurpreet Singh had filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Survey of India Geographical Department, Dehradun to constitute Expert Committee along with Revenue Officers of Bijnor and Haridwar to demarcate boundary dispute of village Chandpur Bagar, Mauza Chakheri, Banuwala, Tehsil Luxor, District Haridwar and village Himmatpur Bela, Tehsil and District Bijnor.

A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla ordered, “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the District Magistrate, Haridwar and the District Magistrate, Bijnor may designate appropriate Sub Divisional Magistrate and the revenue team comprising of officers working under them who may visit the village Himmatpur Bela, Tehsil and District Bijnor and determine and demarcate the points through which the undisputed boundary between the two States exists. Such exercise may be carried out in the presence of the petitioner on 23.1.2024 at 12.00 noon.”

The Bench added that the petitioner will ensure his presence on the date and time fixed by the court.

Advocate S.C. Upadhyay represented the petitioner while Standing Counsel S.P. Singh and Deputy Advocate General Krishna Singh represented the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner had further sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the District Magistrate, Haridwar and Sub Divisional Officer, Luxor, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand not to make any demarcation of the Gram Sabha land Chandpur Bagar Mauza Khakheri, Banuwala, Tehsil Luxor, District Haridwar without constituting Joint Revenue Team of Revenue Officer of District Bijnor, State of Uttar Pradesh and Revenue Officer of District Haridwar, State of Uttarakhand.

The dispute in the petition was that, some part of the land owned by the petitioner and in his possession fell exclusively within the State boundary of the State of U.P. He neither owned any land in Uttarakhand nor he was in possession over any land in the same. Yet, owing to certain doubts and differences as to the State boundaries between the two States i.e. State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand, he claimed illegal interference made by the State of Uttarakhand over his possession and cultivation on a land situated at village Himmatpur Bela, Tehsil and District Bijnor.

The High Court after hearing the parties observed, “In view of such facts, we find that no useful purpose would be served in involving the agencies of Union of India as the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand are in agreement that the issue may be resolved by the revenue authorities of the two States.”

Furthermore, the Court said that upon completion of the exercise of demarcation of the State boundaries, appropriate demarcation pillars may be affixed if required, to demarcate any portion of land in dispute falling in the Uttarakhand State. It also directed that if in such a process of demarcation, it is found that the petitioner is in illegal possession over any portion of land in U.P. State, he shall undertake to vacate the same forthwith.

Cause Title- Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India and 6 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:5180-DB)

Click here to read/download the Order