1 2025:CGHC:51333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5411 of 2025 1 - Ram Baswan S/o Raksha Ram Baswan Aged About 58 Years R/o 71/2 Ward No. 14, Sunder Vihar Colony, Kurud, Near Sunrise School, Jamaul, Cement Works, Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Revenue And Land Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd. Through Authorized Officer/ Manager Regional Office, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary and illegal allotment of Government land bearing Khasra No. 80/1, admeasuring 1.5036 hectares, situated at village Jamul, P.H. No. 01, Tehsil Bhilai-03, District Durg (C.G.) by respondent No. 2 in favour Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.16 12:35:59 +0530 2 of respondent No. 4 for establishing a Biofuel Plant in the midst of a densely populated residential locality. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that such allotment has been made without following due procedure of law, in contravention of the Master Plan, environmental statutes, and without considering the objections filed by the residents. Establishment of a Biofuel Plant involving handling of highly inflammable material in a thickly populated area poses a serious threat to public health, safety, and environment, and amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the residents under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing of the said allotment and for a direction to the Respondents to utilize the land for public utility purposes, such as a playground/recreational ground, in the large public interest. In this regard, the petitioner immediately filed objection before the respondent No. 2, which is pending consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner and submits that Biofuel Pant has already been allotted to the respondent No. 4 on 21.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending objection, she is having no objection to the limited prayer and his pending objection application will be decided in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping 3 this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application/objection dated 29.08.2025 of the petitioner in accordance with law/rules/regulations as expeditiously as possible in an objective manner after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti