Land Allotment To Sonam Wangchuk's Institute Lapsed In 2019, Ladakh Admin Tells High Court

News india Land Allotment To Sonam Wangchuk's Institute Lapsed In 2019, Ladakh Admin Tells High Court

Last Updated:October 23, 2026, 15:25 IST

According to the administration, neither the lease deed was executed within the stipulated period nor were the mandatory dues deposited by the institute

The Ladakh administration has defended its decision to cancel the land allotment to the Himalayan Institute of Alternative Learning (HIAL), founded by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, telling the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh that the allotment had already lapsed in 2019 because the institute failed to fulfil the mandatory conditions attached to it.

In a detailed affidavit filed before the high court, the administration has argued that the 40-year lease allotment covering 1,076 kanals and one marla of land at Phyang in Leh was conditional upon the execution of a formal lease deed and payment of the prescribed land premium and ground rent. According to the administration, neither the lease deed was executed within the stipulated period nor were the mandatory dues deposited.

The affidavit, filed by Leh Deputy Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Romil Singh Donk, opposes HIAL’s writ petition challenging the administration’s order dated August 21, 2025, cancelling the land allotment.

The administration has maintained that the allotment stood cancelled by operation of the original allotment conditions on May 5, 2019, and that the subsequent order merely recorded the legal position rather than withdrawing a subsisting lease.

What The Administration Has Argued

According to the affidavit, the allotment was sanctioned on May 5, 2018, for a period of 40 years, subject to the payment of premium and ground rent and the execution of a lease deed within one year.

The administration has relied on the conditions incorporated in the allotment order to argue that failure to execute the lease deed within the stipulated period would result in automatic cancellation. It has further contended that possession of the land could be handed over only after the lease agreement was executed and the prescribed formalities completed.

The administration has disputed HIAL’s claim that it had complied with the conditions of the allotment. It has cited revenue records and correspondence to argue that the institute did not deposit the required premium or ground rent and did not execute the lease deed.

The affidavit also refers to a communication from the Tehsildar, Leh, dated March 5, 2020, which, according to the administration, recorded that HIAL had only submitted an application for execution of the lease deed and had not deposited the required premium or ground rent.

The administration has argued that a request to execute a lease deed, without payment of the prescribed dues, could not be treated as fulfilment of the allotment conditions.

It has also disputed HIAL’s contention that the authorities repeatedly reminded the institute to complete the formalities. The affidavit states that the correspondence relied upon by the petitioner did not establish that the mandatory conditions had been fulfilled within the stipulated period.

Administration Disputes HIAL’s Claim Over Possession

A key issue raised in the affidavit concerns HIAL’s claim that it has been in continuous possession of the allotted land.

The administration has argued that the formal process for handing over possession was never completed because the lease deed was not executed. It has cited the original allotment conditions to maintain that possession could be transferred only after execution of the lease agreement and completion of the prescribed procedure.

According to the affidavit, the institute cannot claim an unconditional or continuing right over government land when the essential conditions governing the allotment remain unfulfilled.

The administration has further argued that construction or other activities undertaken on the site cannot, by themselves, establish a legal right to retain the land in the absence of a valid lease. It has also disputed HIAL’s reliance on revenue-related documents and a non-encumbrance certificate, contending that such records do not establish that the lease conditions were fulfilled or that a valid lease deed was executed.

Village Residents’ Objections Cited In Affidavit

The affidavit also places considerable emphasis on objections raised by residents of Phyang against the allotment of land to HIAL.

According to the administration, objections were submitted by village representatives and local organisations after the allotment, with concerns relating to the proposed use of the land, the development of the institute and the alleged non-fulfilment of assurances made to the village community.

The administration has referred to a representation submitted by the Phyang village Nambardar in November 2018, followed by further complaints in December 2018 and during 2019 and 2020.

The affidavit states that villagers had expressed apprehensions about the allocation of a substantial area of land to the institute and sought its return if the proposed educational project did not progress as envisaged. It also refers to representations by the Phyang Welfare Society in September 2025 and subsequent communications in 2026 seeking the reallocation of the land for public purposes.

The administration has cited these representations to argue that the land allotment had remained contentious within the local community and that the objections were not confined to the period immediately following the original order.

The claims and objections referred to in the affidavit form part of the administration’s submissions before the court; they are not, by themselves, judicial findings on the merits of the dispute.

Dispute Over Land’s Utilisation

The administration has also questioned whether HIAL fulfilled the purpose for which the land was allotted.

According to the affidavit, the allotment was intended to facilitate the establishment of a university or educational institution. The administration has argued that the institute has not established a university recognised under the applicable legal framework and has questioned whether the activities undertaken at the site satisfy the stated objective of the allotment.

It has referred to a communication dated October 5, 2026, from the Higher Education Department of the Union Territory of Ladakh concerning the institution’s status.

The affidavit contends that workshops, training programmes, fellowships and other educational activities, even if conducted, cannot automatically be treated as proof that a legally recognised university has been established.

The administration has further argued that the institute’s claimed achievements and public recognition cannot substitute for compliance with the conditions governing the allotment of government land.

Administration Rejects Covid-19 And Policy-Change Arguments

The affidavit also addresses HIAL’s apparent reliance on subsequent developments, including the Covid-19 pandemic, changes in the land policy and the administrative transition following the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The administration has argued that these developments occurred after the allotment had, according to its position, already lapsed in May 2019. It has maintained that subsequent policy changes or administrative delays could not revive an allotment that had already ceased to operate under its original conditions.

The administration has also disputed the argument that its inaction over the intervening years created a continuing right in favour of the institute. According to the affidavit, the failure to complete the lease formalities and pay the prescribed dues remained the central issue.

Cancellation Order Challenged Before High Court

HIAL has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order dated August 21, 2025, and seeking relief in relation to the land allotment.

The administration has opposed the petition, arguing that the institute cannot seek enforcement of an allotment after failing to comply with the conditions attached to it. It has urged the court to dismiss the petition, maintaining that the allotment had already lapsed and that the institute had not acquired a legally enforceable right to the land.

The affidavit, running into 136 pages including annexures, sets out the administration’s preliminary objections, its response to the petition’s claims and documents relating to the original allotment, revenue records, correspondence and complaints by local residents.

The matter is now before the High Court for consideration. The administration’s submissions represent its position in the ongoing litigation, and the court’s determination will decide the issues raised in the petition.

About the Author

Tejinder Singh Sodhi

A defence journalist, Tejinder Singh Sodhi has the distinction of being the only Indian civilian to have studied at the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In his c...Read More

Read More