HC seeks clarity on land use conversion of Doon tea gardens
A bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra scheduled the next hearing for July 28.
The public interest litigation was filed by Dev Anand, a resident of Vikas Nagar in Dehradun, who highlighted that the region was specifically designated exclusively for tea cultivation and that other agricultural activities were prohibited.
The petitioner argued that replacing tea with seasonal crops undermines the area's designated purpose and urged the state to protect and promote it as a heritage tea estate.
In an earlier hearing, HC directed the petitioner's counsel to cite specific clauses that bar the conversion of plantation land. The state's counsel was asked to clarify the rights of Shri Gururam Rai Mission and the management of Udiya Tea Estate and Goodreach Tea Estate over the land in question.
These tea gardens, some dating back to the 1840s and 1850s, have increasingly come under threat due to encroachment and real estate development.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Big Tummy? Do It Before Bedtime And Lose Weight While You Sleep
Beauty Ideas
Read More
Undo
Multiple PILs have been filed over the years to preserve these green spaces, but many of the once-thriving estates such as Arcadia Grant, East Hopetown, Gudiyabagh, and Herbertpur have since fallen into neglect and disrepair.
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has sought clarification from the state govt and the petitioner on whether necessary approvals were obtained from the Tea Board and the central govt before converting Dehradun's historic tea garden lands for cultivating crops such as sugarcane, cucumbers and watermelons, while ensuring compliance with the Tea Act, 1953.
A bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra scheduled the next hearing for July 28.
The public interest litigation was filed by Dev Anand, a resident of Vikas Nagar in Dehradun, who highlighted that the region was specifically designated exclusively for tea cultivation and that other agricultural activities were prohibited.
The petitioner argued that replacing tea with seasonal crops undermines the area's designated purpose and urged the state to protect and promote it as a heritage tea estate.
In an earlier hearing, HC directed the petitioner's counsel to cite specific clauses that bar the conversion of plantation land. The state's counsel was asked to clarify the rights of Shri Gururam Rai Mission and the management of Udiya Tea Estate and Goodreach Tea Estate over the land in question.
These tea gardens, some dating back to the 1840s and 1850s, have increasingly come under threat due to encroachment and real estate development. Multiple PILs have been filed over the years to preserve these green spaces, but many of the once-thriving estates such as Arcadia Grant, East Hopetown, Gudiyabagh, and Herbertpur have since fallen into neglect and disrepair.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to order closure of slaughter houses for nine days coinciding with the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv, saying there was no such legal mandate. No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC 'You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days,' the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne told the Jain petitioners who sought a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses during the festival. A mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or body to perform a specific legal duty. The Paryushan Parv commenced on Wednesday. The court had earlier directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider the Jain community's representation after it permitted only a one-day closure of slaughter houses during the festival. Pursuant to the court's directions, the BMC issued an order on August 14 extending the closure to two days—August 24 and August 27, the latter coinciding with Ganesh Chaturthi. Dissatisfied, the petitioners returned to court insisting on a full nine-day ban coinciding with the festival. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud cited the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughter houses during the festival. Mumbai has a larger Jain population than Ahmedabad, which the BMC had failed to account for, Chandrachud argued. The plea did not cover fish or seafood and a restriction on slaughter houses would not violate fundamental rights, he said. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, also for the petitioners, maintained that the BMC had disproportionately factored in the interests of the non-vegetarian population, despite a vegetarian majority in Mumbai. He even referred to Emperor Akbar's decree prohibiting slaughter during Paryushan, remarking that it was harder to secure a similar order from the civic body. The court, however, said that unlike in Ahmedabad, no municipal decision had been made here warranting judicial support. 'You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction,' the court said. The judges advised the petitioners to amend their plea if they wished to challenge the BMC's decision for being arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, with notice issued to the BMC.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
It's not for court to decide on ex-servicemen tag for paramilitary personnel: Punjab and Haryana HC
CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana HC has declined to issue an order on including paramilitary officers in the ex-servicemen category, clarifying the matter falls within the realm of policy and is entirely for the state to decide. "This court cannot decide the question of inclusion of retired officials of paramilitary forces, including CRPF, BSF, CISF, in the definition of ex-serviceman (ESM). It is a policy matter, and the state has to decide the issue," HC said in its Aug 18 order. Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Makhan Singh, a resident of Fazilka in Punjab, who had applied for the post of constable (driver) in Punjab Police after retiring from CRPF and was denied appointment under ESM category. Aggrieved, he filed a petition seeking directions to state govt to appoint him as constable (driver). He said he had filed a representation before Punjab govt for inclusion of paramilitary forces in the ESM category. He sought inclusion of paramilitary forces under ESM in view of a SC judgment of Feb 11, 1981, (Akhilesh Prasad Vs Union Territory of Mizoram) in which CRPF was declared an 'armed force' under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Consequently, SC held that CRPF fell within the ambit of "Armed Forces of the Union". After hearing petitioner, HC refused to pass any directions to include the paramilitary force under the definition of ESM but asked Punjab govt to consider his representation. "Without commenting on merits, the petition stands disposed of with the observation that the state may pass an appropriate order within six months from today."
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
No HC relief to Jains seeking ban on slaughter for all of Paryushan Parv
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday issued notice to the state and BMC on petitions by Jain religious trusts to close slaughterhouses during the entire Paryushan Parv. While not granting relief for this year, it questioned the petitioners' right to a mandamus. "For that there has to be a basis in law. Show us which law says we must close it for 10 days," said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne. On July 7, HC had directed BMC to reconsider its Aug 2024 decision to close for a day. Four trusts challenged the BMC commissioner's Aug 14 order that directed slaughterhouses to close on two days - Aug 24 and 27 (also being Ganesh Chaturthi). Their advocates said the decision, the same as last year, took irrelevant matters into account. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud said it did not consider that the population of Jains in Maharashtra and Mumbai is more than in Gujarat and Ahmedabad. It refers to fish and eggs when ban is sought on slaughter for meat. Chandrachud cited the Supreme Court's 2008 decision that upheld 9 day-closure. The judges said there is no legislative mandate, policy or legally enforceable right that slaughterhouses must close. Chandrachud said a statutory authority vested with discretion has to exercise it based on relevant material. The judges said whether it is wrongly decided on irrelevant material and exhibits non-application of mind, still that is a case for setting aside or quashing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Can you spot the fake IT worker? - Modernization without disruption CIO | Rocket Software Undo The petitioners seek closure for all days. "We want to know where that right flows from?" the CJ asked. Chandrachud replied it was from Article 51(A) (g), "that we must have compassion for all living creatures." You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai Justice Marne said the BMC chief noted the population of Jains is less compared to other communities and it is "subjective satisfaction reached" by him. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar said BMC should have considered vegetarian and non-vegetarian population because a large population in Mumbai is vegetarian. "They have considered the entire population as if the entire Mumbai is non-veg," he said, adding that due to Shravan, "half of them don't eat non-veg. " BMC's advocate Oorja Dhond said the commissioner considered petitioners' representations and SC decision. The order said "Deonar supplies not only to Mumbai city but also MMR." The judges said the state and BMC will have to be heard and posted the hearing after two weeks. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
