The Uttarakhand High Court has raised significant questions regarding the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, specifically whether it grants Nepalese citizens an unrestricted right to settle and purchase property in India. The court has also directed the government to clarify whether Indian nationals receive the same privileges in Nepal in practice.
Court's Observations During PIL Hearing
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay made these observations while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Nainital resident Pawan Jatav against the Union of India and other authorities. The petitioner alleged that approximately 25 families from Nepal had occupied government and nazool land in Nainital city and near Bajun in Khurpatal gram sabha over the past several years without obtaining Indian citizenship.
The petition further alleged that these individuals had procured voter ID cards, driving licenses, permanent residence certificates, ration cards, and PAN cards through administrative loopholes. This enabled them to be included in voter lists, secure water and electricity connections, and avail benefits under government welfare schemes.
Government's Reliance on Treaty Article
During the hearing, the counsel for the Union government relied on Article 7 of the 1950 treaty. This article stipulates that India and Nepal shall grant each other's nationals, on a reciprocal basis, the same privileges in matters of residence, property ownership, participation in trade and commerce, movement, and other privileges of a similar nature. However, the bench questioned whether this reciprocity was being followed in practice and noted that the government had not placed on record what rights were actually being extended to Indian nationals in Nepal.
In its written order, the court stated, “It has not been disclosed what privileges are being given to Indian nationals by Nepal which is necessary to ascertain whether Nepali citizens are entitled to settle in the country without any formal permission from the government.”
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the treaty could not be interpreted as blanket permission for foreign nationals to acquire property in India without following Indian law. The counsel added that any purchase of immovable property by a foreign national, including a Nepali citizen, must comply with the regulatory framework and, where required, obtain prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Court's Directions
The court noted that the state's affidavit referred to the treaty but did not explain the modalities under which Nepalese citizens were settling and purchasing land in India. Consequently, the court directed the state government to file a comprehensive affidavit within three weeks, clarifying the policy and legal framework under which such residence, settlement, and property transactions are being permitted. The PIL also sought action against officials who allegedly issued identity documents to these families and a halt to the alleged encroachments. The matter will be listed after three weeks.
