The Supreme Court sharply criticised a Dehradun lawyer for trying to block the Sainya Dham war memorial project. CJI Kant said, “You must have taken possession…those who sacrificed their lives for the nation deserve respect,” from us today.
The Supreme Court criticized a Dehradun-based lawyer who attempted to impede the construction of the ‘Sainya Dham’ war memorial in District Dehradun.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, remarked,
“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 Dismissed as withdrawn.”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, claiming to be an advocate in Dehradun, argued that the State Government is constructing a war memorial named ‘Sainya Dham’ at Guniyal Gaon, Pargana Pachhuwa Doon, District Dehradun, without verifying the true nature of the land.
He alleged that the proposed site is forest land and therefore unsuitable for any other use.
The petitioner’s counsel stated,
“Once a land which is recorded as a forest land…it cannot be converted into…”
CJI Kant responded,
“You must have taken possession of the Land…you must have grabbed this land…those who have sacrificed their lives for the nation at least have some respect for them.”
He further asserted,
“We will issue show cause notice against them…let them come and tell at whose instance they are filing such petitions.”
The counsel claimed the petition was filed by an advocate and raised issues regarding the war memorial’s construction quality.
Chief Justice Kant rebuked,
“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, representing the State, presented a joint survey report conducted by Revenue and Forest authorities, which was signed by the Forest Range Officer, Raipur Range, and Forester, Rajpur Section, along with the Revenue Sub-Inspector and Tehsildar of the area.
The report stated that the land in question is not forest land, and the Forest authorities expressed no objections to its use for the war memorial.
The High Court declared,
“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, the ground taken by the petitioner for challenging the construction of the war memorial is legally unsustainable. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Case Title: Vikesh Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, SLP(C) No.8074/2026