High Court suspends road construction near Mashobra, questions 144-metre forest stretch
High Court suspends road construction near Mashobra, questions 144-metre forest stretch
Shimla, Aug 22,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered an immediate suspension of all construction activities on a proposed road connecting the Shimla–Mandi road to Schilthorn Top near Baldeyan in the Mashobra Range, after serious allegations were raised before the court that the road was being constructed primarily to provide access to a private residence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi passed the order on August 20 in CWPIL No. 97 of 2026, Nageshwar Singh Kanwar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
The petition challenges permission granted on April 27, 2026, for diversion of 0.0720 hectares of forest land for construction of the link road. According to the record placed before the court, the authorities had justified the diversion on the ground that the road was being constructed in the larger public interest and would benefit approximately 245 persons directly or indirectly in Village Sadhora. The proposed alignment had consequently been finalized.
However, the petitioner presented a substantially different picture before the Bench.
Also read: HC quashes criminal proceedings against Jubbal residents, mere protest not obstruction
The court recorded the submission that, contrary to the stated public purpose, the road was being constructed “solely for the purpose of connecting the house of respondent No. 17.” The petitioner also alleged that a large number of trees had been felled for a road measuring only 144 metres, which, according to the submission, directly connects the respondent’s house with the main road.
The Bench was also taken through photographs placed on record showing the greenery through which the proposed road passes and the alleged damage caused to the site because of the construction. The order specifically records that photographs at pages 108 to 111 were relied upon to demonstrate the extent of greenery, while photographs at pages 118 to 129 were cited to show damage at the site.
The court also noted an earlier order passed on May 11 in CWPIL No. 51 of 2026, in which deployment of machinery had been ordered to be restrained if there was no valid sanction.
Another significant contention before the Bench was that the forest diversion permission had allegedly been granted on the “wrong assumption” that the village was located on the top of the hill. The petitioner contended that the village was actually located below the existing road and that the proposed construction was essentially intended to facilitate access for the private respondent.
The Bench did not decide the allegations finally at this stage. Instead, it issued notice to respondents No. 10 to 18, while the State’s Additional Advocate General waived service on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 9.
Crucially, the court directed that “all the construction activities on the said road shall stand suspended with immediate effect.” The matter has been listed for hearing on September 15, 2026, along with CWPIL No. 51 of 2026.
The latest proceedings therefore put under judicial scrutiny the justification for diverting forest land for the proposed road, the actual beneficiaries of the project, the extent of tree felling and the alleged environmental damage at the site.
The court has, however, yet to give a final finding on whether the permission was wrongly granted or whether the road was in fact intended primarily to benefit a private property.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
