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

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