1 CGHC010508762025 2026:CGHC:41107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6307 of 2025 Order Reserved on 12.08.2026 Order Delivered on 22.09.2026 1 - Pramod Yadav S/o Hiralal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Shyama Charan Bangla, Ward No. 29, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Madan Lal Sahu S/o Charan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o H. No. 24/416, Durga Chowk, Near Shani Mandir, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Jitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Netram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 28/409, Manohar Kirana Store, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Police Police Head Quarters, Mantralaya, Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Inspector General Police Raipur Range, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Building/ Road) Division No. 02, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3873 of 2026 1 - Nikhil Sahu S/o Ramchand Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Khamhardih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ravi Sahu, S/o Gopal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.29 Shankar Nagar Khamhardih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shyam Lal Yadav, S/o Kasiram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Ward, Shankar Nagar Khamhardih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Divakar Sahu, S/o Baidhnath Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Khamhardih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 5 - Sunny Sharma Alias Sunny Kumar Maharaj, S/o P.N. Maharaj, Aged About 28 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Khamhardih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur , Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Deaprtment Of Revenue And Disaster Management , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Mantralaya, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Collector, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 7 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Building / Road) Division No.02 ,raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur , Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 7 :- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1.Since both the writ petitions relate to the same subject land bearing Khasra No. 570/1/A situated at Shankar Nagar, Khamhardih, Raipur, and involve challenge to the allotment of 0.250 hectare of land for construction of the Khamhardih Police Station, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2.In WPC No. 6307 of 2025, the petitioners have essentially challenged the allotment order dated 19.07.2020, whereby 0.250 hectare of land out of Khasra No. 570/1/A was allotted for construction of the Police Station. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the land contains a large number of trees and is being used by the residents of the locality as an open green space/“oxy-zone”. 3.Following reliefs have been prayed in WPC No. 6307 of 2025:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the matter in hand. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, 5 direction/directions, order/orders to quash/set aside the impugned allotment order, dt. 19/07/2020 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to prohibit the respondent authorities from cutting of the trees and construction of Police Station in land situated at khasra no. 570/1/A with total area of 5.60 Hectares.10.4. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 4.In WPC No. 3873 of 2026, the petitioners have also questioned the aforesaid allotment, as amended on 13.02.2026, and have additionally prayed for consideration of their representation dated 09.07.2026, whereby an alternative Government land bearing Khasra No. 481 has been suggested for construction of the Police Station. 5.Following reliefs have been prayed in WPC No. 3873 of 2026:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the matter in hand. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any 6 other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondent State to consider and decide the representation dated 09.07.2026 expeditiously and in accordance with law, and, in particular, to consider the allotment of the adjoining vacant Government land bearing khasra no. 481, admeasuring 0.3320 hectares, Gram Shankar Nagar, P.H. No. 63, R.I. Circle Raipur, for construction of the new Khamhardih Police Station in lieu of the oxy- zone land bearing khasra no. 570/1/क/2, admeasuring 0.250 hectares. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting the respondents from felling the trees standing upon, and from carrying out construction of the Police Station upon, the land bearing khasra no. 570/1/A situated at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Ward No. 29, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, and / or to quash and set aside the impugned allotment order dated 19.07.2020 (as amended) to the extent it allots the said oxy-zone land.10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 7 6.Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the subject land has been maintained as a green space for several years and contains a substantial number of mature trees. It is submitted that the construction of the Police Station would result in destruction of the said green cover and would adversely affect the environment and the residents of the locality. It is further submitted that the allotment order itself contained conditions requiring compliance with the applicable laws relating to protection of trees and requiring construction within the stipulated period. According to the petitioners, non-compliance with the said conditions renders the allotment liable to be cancelled. 7.Learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC No. 3873 of 2026 further submit that the petitioners have suggested an alternative site bearing Khasra No. 481, admeasuring 0.3320 hectare, which, according to them, is Government land and can be utilised for construction of the Police Station without disturbing the existing green cover. It is therefore submitted that the representation dated 09.07.2026 deserves consideration. 8 8.Per contra, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Dy. A.G. opposes the petitions. It is submitted that the petitioners are neither the owners nor recorded holders, lessees or authorised occupants of the subject land and have failed to demonstrate any vested or legally enforceable right over the Government land. It is further submitted that the allotment was made by the competent authority for an essential public purpose, namely, construction of a Police Station, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the relevant Government instructions. Learned State counsel submits that the allegation that about 200 trees are required to be felled is not borne out from the official record. It is submitted that the Forest Department had assessed the requirement and, in fact, only five trees have been felled so far. It is further submitted that approximately fifty trees have already been planted in the premises/area by the respondents as a compensatory and mitigating measure. 9.It is also submitted that the existing premises from which the Khamhardih Police Station is functioning is wholly inadequate and does not have sufficient space for proper maintenance of records, parking of vehicles, lock-up facilities, keeping of seized vehicles and case property, working space for police personnel and facilities for members of the public. The 9 construction of a properly equipped Police Station is therefore an essential public requirement. Learned State counsel further submits that construction had already commenced pursuant to the allotment and administrative decisions. However, after the order dated 28.07.2026 passed in WPC No. 3873 of 2026, no further construction activity has been undertaken. It is submitted that the alternative site suggested by the petitioners is not a readily available vacant site, as the revenue record itself indicates that the said land has been earmarked for other purposes and is under occupation/boundary wall. 10.Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submits that the allotment of the subject land for construction of the Khamhardih Police Station was made by the competent authority for a legitimate public purpose and that the Public Works Department is undertaking the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the directions of the competent authorities. It is submitted that the existing Police Station premises are inadequate for proper functioning and do not provide sufficient space for parking of vehicles, maintenance of records, lock-up facilities, storage of seized vehicles and case property, and other essential requirements. Learned counsel further submits that 10 the construction is being carried out after obtaining the requisite administrative and technical sanctions and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 11.It is further submitted that the allegation regarding indiscriminate felling of trees is misconceived. The construction plan has been prepared keeping the existing trees in view and only the minimum number of trees, if any, required for execution of the sanctioned construction would be affected. Any tree felling shall be undertaken only after obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority and in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. It is also submitted that plantation has been undertaken in the area as a mitigating and compensatory measure. Learned counsel therefore submits that no interference with the allotment or the construction of the Police Station is warranted. 12.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13.The undisputed position is that the subject land is Government/revenue land and that 0.250 hectare thereof was allotted by the competent authority for construction of the Khamhardih Police Station. The petitioners do not claim any 11 ownership, leasehold or other proprietary interest in the subject land. 14.The grievance of the petitioners, however, cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they have no proprietary right over the land, since their grievance is substantially founded upon environmental concerns arising from the alleged felling of trees and the use of the green space. The right to a clean and healthy environment is undoubtedly an aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the requirement of providing adequate police infrastructure for maintenance of law and order and public safety is also an important public function. 15.The issue before this Court, therefore, is not one of choosing between public interest and private interest. Both the preservation of the environment and provision of adequate police infrastructure constitute matters of public interest. The question is whether the decision of the competent authority to utilise the allotted Government land for construction of the Police Station suffers from such illegality, arbitrariness or statutory violation as would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12 16.In the present case, the allotment was made by the competent revenue authority for a specific public purpose. The respondents have placed material to demonstrate that the existing Police Station premises are inadequate and that there is a genuine administrative requirement for construction of a new Police Station. No material has been brought on record to establish that the allotment was actuated by mala fide, extraneous considerations or colourable exercise of power. 17.As regards the apprehension regarding felling of trees, the respondents have specifically stated that the requirement has been assessed by the competent authorities and that only five trees have actually been felled so far. It has further been stated that approximately fifty trees have been planted in the same premises/area. The respondents have also undertaken that tree felling shall be confined only to the minimum number of trees required for the construction and shall be undertaken in accordance with the applicable Rules governing felling of trees and after obtaining the requisite permission. 18.In view of the aforesaid stand of the respondents, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that all the approximately 200 trees standing upon the subject land 13 would necessarily be felled for construction of the Police Station cannot, at this stage, be accepted as an established fact. 19.At the same time, the environmental concern raised by the petitioners cannot be ignored. The respondents shall, therefore, ensure that no tree is felled except to the extent absolutely necessary for execution of the sanctioned construction and only after following the applicable statutory procedure and obtaining all requisite permissions from the competent authority. The respondents shall also comply with the applicable requirements relating to compensatory plantation and environmental protection. 20.So far as the contention regarding the alleged automatic cancellation of the allotment on account of non-completion of construction within the stipulated period is concerned, the allotment has subsequently been amended on 13.02.2026. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the subsequent administrative steps taken by the competent authorities, this Court is not inclined to invalidate the allotment merely on the basis of the said contention. 14 21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Soni and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another (2007) 10 SCC 635 has held as under:- “11. The High Court, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, in clear and categorical terms, found that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction vested in him to grant/allot the government land and the power vests only with the District Collector. The appellants did not plead and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer is conferred with the jurisdiction to allot/grant the government land on the strength of applications by the interested parties. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinise the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority. 12. The appellants in this case failed to establish that they have lawfully secured allotment of land. It is the duty cast upon the appellants to plead and establish that the order of allotment/grant by 15 the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of their predecessor-in-title created any legal right and also further establish the transfer of land in their favour has been validly made by the Sub- Divisional Officer. In such view of the matter we are of the opinion, justice has been done in the matter and the High Court rightly refused to resurrect or resuscitate the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer which is unenforceable in law. 13. The “Rules regarding Management of Government Property”, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the appellants, do not provide for and contemplate for making any such transfer of government land from one person to another person. The Parganadhikari (Sub-Divisional Officer) has no authority whatsoever even under the said Rules to make any grant in favour of any individual or individuals. Rule 5, upon which reliance has been placed reads as under: “5. Land will be allotted on lease under the Government Grants Act on the format prescribed by Revenue Board. Parganadhikari is hereby authorised to sign this lease deed on behalf of His Excellency The Governor. No registration is required for such deeds.” A plain reading of the Rule clearly reveals that Parganadhikari is merely 16 authorised to sign the lease deed on behalf of the Governor. The Rules nowhere confer power upon the Parganadhikari to allot government land on lease in favour of any individual. 16. In Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828] a Primary Health Centre was formerly inaugurated at a particular village subject to certain conditions. Since those conditions were not satisfied, the Panchayat Samithi resolved to shift it to another village. The Government, in exercise of its review jurisdiction, interfered with the resolution so passed by the Panchayat Samithi without providing any opportunity whatsoever to the Panchayat Samithi. The Government's order was challenged in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The A.P. High Court held the order passed by the Government on the review to be bad, but did not interfere on merits. The Supreme Court, while confirming the order of the High Court observed that: (AIR p. 837, para 17) “If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order—it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi.” 17 The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was right in refusing to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC 237 : AIR 1999 SC 2583] this Court, relying upon Venkateswara Rao [AIR 1966 SC 828] observed: (SCC p. 244, para 17) “The above case is a clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of the principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law.” 22.Also, in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Jha vs. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary and Others (2019) 2 SCC 499, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High 18 Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. In arriving at the finding that the land offered by respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was located within Giriyama Mauza of Falka Block the learned Single Bench embarked upon adjudication of a hotly disputed factual issue, which the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, does not do. 13. It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact, that does not go to the root of jurisdiction. The High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own findings, which the High Court has done in this case. Even assuming that there had been any error in the computation of marks in respect of fixed and movable assets, the High Court could, at best, have remitted the case of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary to the authorities concerned for reconsideration. 16. In exercise of discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court might interfere with administrative matters only if the decision is violative of fundamental or basic principles of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. It 19 is true that the High Court might rectify, in exercise of its power of judicial review, an error of law or even an error of fact, for sufficient reasons, if the error breaches fundamental or basic principles of justice or fair play or if the error is patent and/or flagrant, but not otherwise. However, even in cases where the High Court finds an apparent factual error which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to give the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error. It is only in the rarest of cases, where the factual error is so obvious that it is rectifiable by the Court itself, that the Court might, to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error.” 23.As regards the alternative land bearing Khasra No. 481 suggested by the petitioners in their representation dated 09.07.2026, the material placed by the respondents indicates that the said land is not an unencumbered and readily available vacant site in the manner suggested by the petitioners. The record indicates that the land has been earmarked for other purposes and is subject to existing occupation/boundary wall. The selection of a site for establishment of a Police Station also involves various administrative and technical considerations, including accessibility, security, connectivity, law-and-order 20 requirements and future expansion. Such matters are primarily within the domain of the competent administrative authorities. 24.This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority in regard to the selection of a site for an essential public facility, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to law. No such case has been made out in the present petitions. 25.It is also relevant that WPC No. 4637 of 2025 had earlier been preferred by certain other residents concerning the same subject land and the representation made by them. The present petitioners are admittedly different persons. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to non-suit the present petitioners solely on the ground of res judicata. Nevertheless, the existence of the earlier proceedings and the orders passed therein is a relevant circumstance while considering the present challenge. 26.On an overall consideration of the matter, this Court finds that the allotment of 0.250 hectare of Government land for construction of the Khamhardih Police Station, being for an undisputed public purpose and having been made by the 21 competent authority, does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 27.Since in both the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have essentially challenged the action of the respondent authorities in allotting the subject Government land for construction of the Police Station, and the said allotment has been found to have been made by the competent authority for a legitimate public purpose, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said allotment in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, having regard to the environmental concerns raised by the petitioners, the respondents shall ensure that the construction is undertaken strictly in accordance with law and the sanctioned plan, and that no tree is felled except to the extent absolutely necessary for the construction and only after obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority and complying with all applicable statutory safeguards. The respondents shall also undertake compensatory plantation in accordance with the applicable rules. So far as the representation dated 09.07.2026 submitted in WPC No. 3873 of 2026 seeking consideration of Khasra No. 481 as an alternative site is 22 concerned, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, but no independent direction for allotment of the said alternative land is warranted. 24.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title or any independent right of any person over Khasra No. 481 or any other land. The competent authorities shall deal with such matters strictly in accordance with law. 25.With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. 26.All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha