1 CGHC010039732025 2026:CGHC:38795-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 24 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Dharamlal Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation- Journalist, R/o Patharri-Para, Sahu Basti, Ward No. 17, Near Power House School, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, Pin 496577. Mobile No. 9179697845 / 8319270061 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce And Industry Vanijya Bhawan, 16, Akbar Road, New Delhi, India 110011, Email- Www.Ncwwomenhelpline.In 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Address At- Aluminium Sadan Core 6 Scope Office Complex 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Delhi, India- 110003 And Also Having Office At- Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh, India, 495684 4 - Vedanta Limited A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Address At- 1st Floor, C Wing, Unit 103, Corporate Avenue Atul Projects, Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 5 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner A Body Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 Having Its Office At- Saket Bhawan, Iti Chowk, Rampur, Korba, 495677, E-Mail- Corporationkorba@Gmail.Com .. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.02 18:30:01 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5. : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/09/2026 1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ Union of India, Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 2, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4 and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. The present writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately stop all activities on Government and forest land at Village Kohadiya, Korba Chhattisgarh; B) Direct the respondents to remove all illegal encroachments from Government and forest land; C) Issue appropriate directions for the restoration of the encroached Government and forest land to its original condition; D) Direct the Respondents to comply with environmental laws and Supreme Court directives; 3 E) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, a journalist and RTI activist, seeking protection of Government and forest land situated at Village Kohadiya, District Korba, particularly land bearing Khasra Nos. 486/1 and 491/1, which are stated to be recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle”, from alleged unauthorized encroachment and use in connection with the expansion project of respondent No.3-Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO). It is alleged that respondent Nos.3 and 4, either directly or through their contractors, have utilized the aforesaid Government/forest land for installation of temporary concrete batching plants, labour hutments and other construction-related activities without obtaining the requisite statutory permissions. The petitioner, having obtained relevant information under the RTI Act and upon verification of the site, approached the concerned authorities by submitting a complaint dated 28.08.2023, and also lodged a non-cognizable complaint before the concerned police station; however, according to the petitioner, no effective action has been taken. The present petition has, therefore, been filed seeking appropriate directions for stopping the alleged unauthorized activities, removal of encroachment and restoration and protection of the Government and forest land in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the larger public interest for protection of Government and forest land situated at Village Kohadiya, District Korba, particularly Khasra Nos. 486/1 and 491/1, which, as per the revenue records and documents obtained under the RTI Act, are recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle”. It is submitted that respondent No.3-BALCO, in connection 4 with its expansion project, has utilized the aforesaid Government/forest land, either directly or through its contractors, for installation of temporary concrete batching plants, labour hutments and other construction-related activities and has also constructed a wall thereon without obtaining the requisite statutory permissions. Learned counsel further submits that the Municipal Corporation, Korba had sealed the site of the batching plant on 31.01.2023 and imposed a penalty in respect of the unauthorized activity, despite which no effective steps have been taken for removal of the alleged encroachment and restoration of the land. 5. Learned counsel further submits that merely describing the batching plant or other construction activities as temporary does not dispense with the requirement of obtaining requisite statutory permissions for use of Government or forest land. It is submitted that the continued use of the aforesaid land for industrial and construction-related activities adversely affects the environment, forest vegetation and public property and is contrary to the constitutional mandate for protection of the environment and forests. Learned counsel submits that despite the representations made by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, no effective action has been taken to protect the said land, remove the alleged encroachment or restore the land to its original condition. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may direct the Respondents to stop all unauthorized activities, remove the encroachment, restore and protect the Government and forest land and ensure that no activity is undertaken thereon except in accordance with law and after obtaining all requisite statutory permissions. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- State submits that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding 5 encroachment over Government and forest land and unauthorized industrial activities are matters requiring verification by the competent revenue, forest and other authorities. It is submitted that merely recording the land as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle” in the revenue records cannot, by itself, establish the allegation of encroachment or unauthorized use without proper demarcation and spot verification. He further submits that the State authorities are conscious of their statutory duties relating to protection of Government and forest land and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, if any unauthorized occupation or violation is found upon due verification. It is also submitted that the representations made by the petitioner have been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and the factual position can be examined by the competent authority. He , therefore, submits that the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to verify the status, ownership, demarcation and use of the land in question and, in case any violation or unauthorized activity is found, to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited and Vedanta Limited, submits that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable as the Petitioner has suppressed material facts regarding the status and possession of land bearing Khasra Nos.486/1 and 491/1, Village Kohadiya, District Korba, which forms part of the Government land allotted to Respondent No.3 and possession whereof was handed over by the State Government during the period from 1968 to 1975. It is submitted that the validity of such possession has already been upheld by this Court in earlier proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of encroachment is incorrect and that the aforesaid land has been notified for industrial and allied purposes and has been used for 6 industrial activities for several decades. It is further submitted that requisite permissions for the activities undertaken by the answering Respondents, including the batching plant, have been obtained from the competent authorities and that the land was allotted and possession thereof was handed over prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, with the requisite premium and compensation having been paid. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no unauthorized encroachment or illegal industrial activity on the part of the answering Respondents and that the petition is based on incorrect and incomplete facts. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 further submits that the Petitioner had himself approached the learned Tahsildar, Korba by application dated 14.12.2023 raising the same allegations regarding encroachment over Khasra Nos.486/1 and 491/1 and establishment of a batching plant and labour hutments, but has not fairly disclosed the complete status of the said proceedings before this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.5553 of 2022, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023, wherein it was observed that the petitioner had no locus as no right, much less any fundamental right, of the petitioner was infringed and that the State authorities had already taken remedial measures. Learned counsel submits that the suppression of these material facts and repeated invocation of different forums in respect of the same grievance shows that the present PIL lacks bona fides and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The 7 grievance raised by the petitioner is essentially with regard to the alleged encroachment over Government/forest land bearing Khasra Nos.486/1 and 491/1, Village Kohadiya, District Korba, and its alleged use for construction- related activities. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have specifically disputed the allegation of encroachment and have stated that the land in question forms part of the land allotted to respondent No.3, possession whereof was handed over by the State Government during the period from 1968 to 1975. It has also been submitted that the status and possession of the said land have already been considered in earlier proceedings before this Court. Thus, the disputed questions regarding the status, possession and lawful use of the land cannot be conclusively determined in the present Public Interest Litigation merely on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner. 10. We also find that the petitioner had approached the learned Tahsildar, Korba by application dated 14.12.2023 raising substantially the same grievance regarding the alleged encroachment over Khasra Nos.486/1 and 491/1 and establishment of the batching plant and labour hutments. The petitioner had also earlier approached before the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5553 of 2022, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2023. In the said proceedings, this Court had noticed that the petitioner had no locus as no right, much less any fundamental right, of the petitioner was infringed and that the State authorities had already taken remedial measures. The aforesaid facts, coupled with the disputed nature of the claims raised in the present petition, do not persuade us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present PIL. 8 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any clear case of unauthorized encroachment or illegal activity warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus. Consequently, no interference is called for in exercise of the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the competent authorities from taking appropriate action in accordance with law, if any unauthorized occupation or violation is found upon due verification. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok