Uttarakhand HC dismisses BEG Center's plea, rules in villagers' favour in road dispute

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a criminal petition filed by the Bengal Engineering Group and Center (BEG Center), Roorkee, in the ongoing legal dispute over a public road passing through the Roorkee Cantonment area, ruling in favour of local villagers.

There has been a long-standing legal dispute between residents of Bhangeri village in Uttarakhand's Roorkee district and the BEG Center over a road through the cantonment area. The BEG Center had closed this public road by installing a gate.

A single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit said the disputed plot, Khasra No. 710, is recorded in revenue records as a "Gauhar Rasta", meaning a public road, and restricting public movement on it is unreasonable.

The BEG Center is a training institution of the Indian Army, which imparts various types of training, including combat and technical knowledge, to recruits and soldiers of the Bengal Engineer Group, a military engineering regiment in the Corps of Engineers of the Army.

The BEG Center had challenged the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Haridwar on May 30, 2023, and the earlier order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Roorkee, on July 26, 2022.

The SDM had directed the BEG Center to remove the gate from the public road. The plaintiff argued that the disputed land was part of "A-1" defence land, used for military training, and civilian entry was prohibited.

It also argued that the civil court had already dismissed the villagers' land claim, and therefore, the SDM had no jurisdiction to reopen the ownership issue under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Further, the BEG Center also stated that two alternative routes had already been provided to the villagers.

On the other hand, the state government and villagers argued that Khasra No. 710, covering an area of ​​0.3590 hectares, was registered as a "Gauhar Rasta" under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and its classification had never been changed.

After considering the arguments and the documents presented, the high court held that the disputed plot was registered as a public road in revenue records, and the Army could not produce any credible evidence of the land being legally acquired, or of any immediate security threat from the public road passing through it.

The court also clarified that the earlier suit filed by the BEG Center concerned a canal route, which has no connection to the current dispute. Further, revenue records also state that the disputed road stretch lies outside the 648.90 acres of acquired defense land.