The Supreme Court on Friday has declined to interfere with a Uttarakhand High Court judgment permitting the State to utilise land for government construction, including housing for government servants and a de-addiction centre, holding that no case for intervention was made out.

The petitioner argued that the land in question was ceiling land meant for distribution to landless agricultural labourers and alleged that SC/ST beneficiaries were being dispossessed. It was contended that the High Court failed to consider certain documents, including a 2008 communication, allegedly showing that the land had already been allocated.

However, the Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant,Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the governing statute granted the State sufficient flexibility to change land use for public purposes. The Court noted that public utility projects such as government housing and de-addiction centres could not be lightly obstructed. Emphasising that policies cannot override statutory provisions, the Court remarked:

“Policies can’t override the parent statute… Section 25 is very clear that the government can permit land for public purposes.”

The Bench was also critical of the petitioner’s conduct, observing:

“The petitioner appears to be an intermeddler, who has been rightly ousted by the High Court….God knows what is going in the name of public interest.”

Since the petitioner sought to rely on new documents that were not part of the earlier High Court proceedings, the Supreme Court declined to examine them, stating that it would not express any opinion on their validity. It granted liberty to the petitioner or affected persons to pursue remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

“So far as the issue, pleaded before the High Court, which has been adjudicated by the judgment dated 4 July 2025, is the perfect view taken by the High Court, warranting no interference by this court. The petitioner appears to be an intermeddler, who has been rightly ousted by the High Court. However, faced with this, the petitioner relies for some new document, an Excel P-19, which was not the subject matter of consideration before the High Court in the PIL filed by the petitioner. As regard to the validity of that order, we do not express any opinion, the petitioner or any other public-spirited person the petitioner or the affected person shall be at liberty to have recourse in law, to have their recourse in accordance with you.”