Dismissed¶41

Gram Panchayat Mohgaon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2026WA/210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 210 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (neutral citation 2026:CGHC:11581-DB), decided 11.03.2026, Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice - writ appeal dismissed, upholding Single Judge's dismissal (order dated 15.01.2026) of WPC No. 6123 of 2025 by Gram Panchayat Mohgaon and others against canal construction under the Rajeev Gandhi Sanwardhan Scheme (Samoda Diversion); DPR based on 2007 survey; maintainability, authorization and fundamental-rights/denial-of-hearing objections rejected; no interference absent cogent material showing arbitrariness or illegality; no cost(s).

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. ¶38

Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:11581-DB

NAFR

BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.03.11 17:04:53 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WA No. 210 of 2026

¶8

1 - Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Smt. Hirmat Bai Dhruw W/o Late Pawan Kumar Dhruw Aged About 26 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, R/o Village Mohgaon, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Govinddeo Agarwal S/o Late Ram Gopal Agrawal Aged About 74 Years R/o A-205, Maruti Solitaire, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Palchand Sonwani S/o Sadhram Aged About 52 Years Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - The Collector District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana, Dutiya Charan Karya Sambag Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

4 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Opposite Ghandi Udyan, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General

¶20

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶24

11.03.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State.

¶26

This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 15.01.2026 (Gram Panchayat Mohgaon and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 6123 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

The facts of the case according to the appellants is that appellant No.1 Gram Panchayat, Mohgaon, appellant No.2 who is the Sarpanch of the said village, and appellants No.3 and 4 alleging that the State Government has undertaken construction of a canal under the Rajeev Gandhi Sanwardhan Scheme (Samoda Diversion). The said canal project is adversely affecting them. The record, however, reveals that the project was initiated pursuant to a survey conducted in the year 2007, on the basis of which a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was prepared and thereafter the programme and map of the canal were duly approved by the competent authorities, following which the construction work was

¶28

¶29

commenced by the State Government. Since the inception of the project, the appellants have been raising objections with regard to the construction of the said canal and have therefore approached this Court by filing WPC No.6123 of 2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.01.2026. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the petition was not maintainable. It is submitted that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were duly authorized to file the writ petition and had a vested interest in the reliefs claimed therein. The appellants further submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the petition was not in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, but was filed alleging infringement of the rights of the appellants themselves. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that appellants Nos. 3 and 4 had personal interest and had attempted to give the petition a colour of public interest by taking assistance of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 is stated to be erroneous and contrary to the record. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that appellant No. 2 was duly authorized to institute the writ petition and that the cause of action arose when the authorities, after a lapse of about 21 years, suddenly revived the project and proceeded to take action, despite the project having remained dormant for a long period. According to the appellants, in such circumstances the jurisdiction of this Court was rightly invoked,

¶31

¶32

however the writ petition was dismissed at the threshold without proper consideration of the issues raised. He also submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the project work had been stalled causing financial burden on the public exchequer is contrary to the record, as there was no interim order granted at the instance of the appellants at any point of time. It is further urged that the appellants had placed on record a technical expert report supporting their claims, which was discarded without any justification. The appellants further contend that earlier directions issued in WPC No. 3523/2024 could not have been ignored by the respondent authorities. It is thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and, if not set-aside, would result in grave injustice to the appellants.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶35

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the

¶36

¶37

question as to whether the canal should be constructed in a straight or curved alignment falls within the domain of technical experts and the project has been undertaken only after finalization of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared on the basis of expert assessment. The learned Single Judge further held that in absence of any cogent material demonstrating arbitrariness or illegality in the execution of the project, the Court cannot interfere in matters involving technical expertise. It was also observed that due to filing of the writ petition, the project work had been stalled, thereby causing financial burden on the public exchequer, and the contention of the appellants regarding denial of opportunity of hearing was also not acceptable as construction of the canal did not infringe any fundamental rights of the appellants and dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein.

¶38

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶39