The Uttarakhand High Court has questioned whether the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, grants Nepalese citizens unrestricted rights to settle and purchase property in India, while asking the government to clarify if Indian citizens receive similar privileges in Nepal in practice.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay raised the issue while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Nainital resident Pawan Jatav against the Union government and others.
The petitioner alleged that around 25 Nepalese families had occupied government and nazool land in Nainital city and near Bajun in Khurpatal gram sabha over several years without obtaining Indian citizenship.
According to the plea, the families allegedly secured voter ID cards, driving licences, permanent residence certificates, ration cards and PAN cards through administrative loopholes. These documents allegedly enabled them to be included in voter lists, obtain water and electricity connections and avail benefits under government welfare schemes.
During the hearing, counsel for the Union government relied on Article 7 of the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, which provides reciprocal privileges to citizens of both countries in matters relating to residence, property ownership, trade, movement and similar rights.
However, the bench questioned whether such reciprocity was actually being implemented by Nepal for Indian citizens. The court observed that the government had not placed on record details of the privileges being extended to Indians in Nepal.
“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 govt,” the court said in its written order.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the treaty could not be interpreted as blanket permission for foreign nationals to acquire immovable property in India without complying with Indian laws and regulatory requirements, including prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India wherever applicable.
The court also noted that the state government’s affidavit referred to the treaty but did not explain the legal framework or modalities under which Nepalese citizens were settling and purchasing land in India.
The bench directed the state government to file a comprehensive affidavit within three weeks clarifying the policy and legal provisions governing residence, settlement and property transactions involving Nepalese citizens.
The PIL has also sought action against officials allegedly involved in issuing identity documents to the families and requested a halt to the alleged encroachments. The matter is scheduled to be heard again after three weeks.
(With inputs from TOI)
