Ramkumar Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jul 2026WPC/6495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 6495 of 2025; Ramkumar Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh; decided 20.07.2026; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge; Article 226 writ petition; mandamus; Half River Canal; underground pipeline versus open canal; Khasra no 140/2, Village Bakela, Pandariya, Kabirdham; representations dated 02.12.2025; direction to consider and decide representations; reasoned and speaking order; opportunity of hearing; 60-day timeline; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 02.12.2025 and subsequent representations by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within 60 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Ramkumar Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to construct an underground canal below the petitioner's land (Khasra no 140/2, area 0.4050 hectare, Village Bakela, Distt. Kabirdham) and thereafter flatten the land so as not to disturb his possession. +1 more

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 02.12.2025 and the subsequent representations submitted before the competent authorities, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order, and the entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — WPC No. 6495 of 2025, Ramkumar Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, decided 20.07.2026 by Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus that the proposed Half River Canal be constructed through an underground pipeline beneath the petitioner's land (Khasra no 140/2, area 0.4050 hectare, Patwari Halka No. 00009, Village Bakela, RI/Tehsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham) instead of an open canal, the plan having allegedly been changed after excavation commenced despite an initial assurance of an underground canal. Rather than granting the mandamus sought, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 02.12.2025 and subsequent representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, preferably within 60 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI CGHC010528942025 TIWARI Date: 2026.07.21 10:16:09 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:30794

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 6495 of 2025

¶7

Ramkumar Dhurve S/o Dongar Singh Dhurve, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Bakela, P.O. Kukdur, Block Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶14

5 - SDO, Water Resource Department, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner	: Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

20.07.2026

¶23

1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

¶24

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to construct an underground canal below the petitioner's land and thereafter flatten the land so as to not disturb the petitioner's possession over Khasra no 140/2, area 0.4050 hectare, Patwari Halka No. 00009, Village Bakela, RI Pandariya, Tehsil Pndariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶25

(ii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

¶26

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been instituted seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to construct the proposed Half River Canal through an underground pipeline beneath the petitioner's land instead of constructing an open canal. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities had initially assured the petitioner and other affected landowners that the canal would be laid

¶27

¶28

underground and, on such assurance, they consented to the project. However, after commencement of excavation work, the authorities changed the original plan and decided to construct an open canal, which would seriously affect the petitioner's agricultural land. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already submitted representations before the competent authorities requesting them to retain the original proposal of an underground canal, but the same have not yet been considered. The petitioner would be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to the competent authorities to expeditiously consider and decide his pending representations in accordance with law.

¶29

3. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent authorities shall consider the petitioner's representations in accordance with law and has no objection if an appropriate direction is issued for expeditious consideration of the same.

¶30

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶31

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 02.12.2025 and the subsequent representations submitted before the competent authorities, by passing a reasoned and speaking

¶32

¶33

order, strictly in accordance with law. The competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶37

Yogesh

Ramkumar Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramhenpur Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purnima Bai Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhiraj Kumar Arya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghasiya Ram Koreti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gousiya Women Self Help Group- Chargarh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Singhdeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh