Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶4

CGHC010194592026

¶5

2026:CGHC:31108-DB

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPPIL No. 33 of 2026

¶8

Vivek Kumar Pandey S/o Gaurishankaqr Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Neechepara, Shankar Mandir, Ward 12, Dharamjaigarh, Pathalgaon -Road Dharamjaigarh (NP) District -Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur ), District -Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, (PCCF) Forest Department, Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Divisional Forest Officer, Dharamjaigarh Forest Division, Dharamjaigarh District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Collector, Raigarh Collectorate Office, District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change Paryavaran Bhawan,jor Bagh Road New Delhi 110003.

¶16

6 - M/s Dhanwada Power And Infrastructure Private Limited Through Project Manager Shri S Saiya, Gram Bhalupakhna Vikaskhand Dharamjaigarh, DistrictRaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶17

2

¶18

7 - M/s Dhanwada Power And Infrastructure Private Limited Through Project Manager Shri Krishna Gram Bhalupakhna Vikaskhand Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4/ : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate State General For Respondent(s) No. 5/ : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Union of India

¶22

For Respondent No. 6 and 7 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

¶23

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶26

22/07/2026

¶27

1. Heard Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and 7.

¶28

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

¶29

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to immediately stop all the nonforestery activities being carried out on the forest land in question;

¶30

(b) Direct the respondents to maintain status-quo with respect to the subject land;

¶31

(c) Direct an independent inquiry or constitute a courtappointed committee to inspect the site and submit a report;

¶32

3

¶33

(d) Restrain the project proponent from proceeding towards COD (Commercial Operation Date) without statuory approvals;

¶34

(e) Pass any other order(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice under the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶35

3. Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh and a public spirited person and a journalist by profession actively engaged in the matters concerning public interest. The land bearing Khasra No. 365 (0.128 hectare) and Khasra No. 347 (0.005 hectare), situated at Village Bhalupakhna, Vikaskhand Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, is recorded as Government forest land. The said land is being used for non-forestry purposes in connection with the construction of a 7.5MW small hydroelectric project by M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited, without obtaining prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 { for short, the Act of 1980 }. The petitioner, being a journalist by profession and a resident of Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, during the course of his professional duties and conversation with local resident of the nearby areas, came across the information of construction activities being carried out by M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited a small hydro project of 7.5MW Project on Mand river in the aforesaid Government forest land. The petitioner approached the concerned respondent authorities seeking information regarding the compliance under the statutory provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 which remained unanswered and the use of government forest land for non forest purposes continues which is significantly affecting the rights and welfare of the public at large. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Forest Department seeking the information regarding the compliance of statutory provisions mentioned under

¶36

4

¶37

Section 2 of the Act of 1980, but the same remained unanswered. The petitioner received an official communication dated 09.02.2024 forwarded from the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Dharamjaigarh to M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited (small hydro project) 7.5MW Project through Project Managers (Shri S Saiya & Shri Krishna) which clearly states that non-forestry work and illegal construction activities are taking place in forest land without prior statutory approval from the concerned Department and such work has to be immediately stopped on-site till the final approval from Department. The communication letter dated 21.06.2023 issued from the office of Collector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, to the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Disaster Management Department, whereby a No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been recommended in favour of M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited for the diversion of 2.510 hectares of revenue forest land for non-forestry purposes under the provisions of the Act of 1980. The said land is proposed to be utilized for laying a 33 KV transmission line in connection with a 7.5MW small hydroelectric project on the Mand River situated at village Bhalupakhna, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. The subject land is recorded in the revenue records as revenue forest land (big tree/large bush forest), thereby attracting the statutory rigours of the Act of 1980. The said recommendation has been made subject to compliance with applicable legal requirements, including completion of forest diversion proceedings, ensuring that no adverse impact is caused to any religious or social structures, compensation and restoration of the affected land, and obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority for felling of trees, based on the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dharamjaigarh. The petitioner thereafter also filed numerous applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also

¶38

5

¶39

complaints before the public authority seeking the information regarding the mandatory compliance of statutory provisions mentioned under Section 2 of the Act of 1980 but the same remained unanswered on several occasions.

¶40

4. Mr. Shreshtha submits that on 14.02.2026, the petitioner submitted a complaint through official portal of Janshikayat Nivaran Vibhag before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh raising grievances regarding the ongoing non-forestry activities on forest land in violation of the statutory provisions defined under section 2 of the Act of 1980 by M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited structure. Pertinent thereto, the same complaint for the scrutiny was forwarded to the District magistrate, Raigarh on 27.02.2026 to take appropriate action and forward the report to the concerned complainant and to upload the same in the official portal. The matter was further referred to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh who directed an enquiry through the concerned Patwari. A report dated 23.03.2026 was prepared after conducting Panchnama of the said land. In the said report, it is stated that the land in question is unoccupied Government land categorized as small scrub forest, and that no construction of a power house, penstock, and switchyard has been carried out by the Company in Khasra Number 365 {0.0550 hectares} nor have any of the trees been cut. It is further stated that no illegal work is taking place on the land and is empty. A notice was issued to Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited, to which a reply was submitted stating that the project is being executed and developed completely in accordance with law and denied the allegations made in the complaint, legally and as per the guidelines of the Government.

¶41

5. Mr. Shreshtha further submits that the findings recorded in the report dated 23.03.2026 are prima facie inconsistent with the earlier official

¶42

6

¶43

communication dated 09.02.2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer Dharamjaigarh which clearly acknowledged the non-forestry activities were being carried out on forest land by M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited withot prior approval and directed immediate stoppage of such activities. The illegal construction of power plant in forest land in question has been raised publicly by various media houses and the same has been published in multiple news paper highlighting the corruption taking place in the name of public benefits by the concerned public authorities. Despite the aforesaid circumstances, there exists a reasonable apprehension that activities in furtherance of the project are continuing, in violation of statutory provisions, thereby necessitating intervention by this Hon'ble Court.

¶44

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, placing reliance on the return filed, submits that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and substance and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as it is based upon the self serving documents without placing on record before this Hon'ble Court the complete facts and circumstances of the case relevant for a just and proper adjudication of the dispute in hand. The petitioner has filed the present PIL without verifying the actual facts and without undertaking proper research. The petition has been filed only on the basis of certain news reports and statements made in the petition are self serving without there being any substantive proof. The Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA) entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 6 Company M/s. Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited on 06.11.2015 pursuant to the sanction order dated 30.10.2015 for construction of 7.5MW small hydroelectric plant at village Bhalupakhna Block

¶45

7

¶46

Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh, on river Mand. Pursuant to the said agreement and on the request made by the respondent No. 6-Company, the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management made a request to the Collector (Land Record), District Raigarh for grant of NOC with respect to 33 KV transmission line for the proposed project passing through the revenue forest land admeasuring 2.510 hectare. In response to the said request, the Collector, Land Records, District Raigarh, vide its memo dated 21.06.2023 granted no objection for the said project for certain pieces of land which have been recorded as revenue forest land. The Khasra nos. 347 and 365 which were the part of the land required for construction of the project, have been recorded as revenue forest land. At this juncture, it is necessary to clarify that the said pieces of land are not the forest land and in-fact, these pieces of land belong to the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management and in these pieces of land, big trees are standing and they are entered into the revenue records as "Bade Jhad Ke Jungle". There were certain complaints wherein it was alleged that the respondent no. 6 Company is doing non forestry work in Khasra no. 347 and 365 and the Range Officer as well as the DFO of Dharamjaigarh Forest Division vide their letter dated 05.03.2024 and 09.02.2024 directed the respondent No. 6 Company not to carry out any non forestry work in the revenue forest area / land. The petitioner moved online compliant in the public grievance redressal portal of the Government of Chhattisgarh alleging, inter-alia that the respondent No. 6 Company is carrying out the non forestry activities in the forest land. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, the concerned Patwari was directed to inquire the matter and the Patwari of PH.No.30 Revenue Circle Barkaruma Tahsil Dharamjaigarh on 21.03.2026 visited the spot and prepared a Panchnama wherein it was reported that it is a settlement gram and as

¶47

8

¶48

per the revenue records, in village Bhalupakhna, Khasra No. 365 (0.550 hectare) has been recorded as revenue forest land and further noted that in the subject Khasra number, no construction has been done by the respondent No.6 company. On the basis of the said Panchnama , a report was prepared and submitted before the SDO, Revenue, Dharamjaigarh for necessary action. The petitioner again made a complaint before the concerned authority reiterating the same thing as alleged in the earlier complaint and taking cognizance of the said complaint, on 20.06.2026 again a Panchnama was prepared by the team comprising of Revenue officials, forest officials and villagers. During the Panchnama , it was found that no non-forestry work is being carried out in the alleged land. The Range Officer, Bakaruma, vide its letter dated 26.06.2026 submitted a report alongwith the Panchnama before the DFO, Dharamjaigarh Forest Division, and the DFO, Dharamjaigarh Forest Division, vide its letter dated 08.07.2026 submitted the report before the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle for necessary action.

¶49

7. Mr. Thakur further submits that a news item was published in daily newspaper Kelo Pravah dated 04.07.2026 alleging that the Tahsildar has given possession of the forest land to the respondent no. 6 Company. Since serial allegations were levelled in the newspaper, the Tahsildar conducted the inquiry wherein it has been opined that village Bhalupakhna is a settlement village and as per the records of right of the year 1985-86 Khasra No. 347 and 365 has been reserved for Nistar purpose as per the provisions of Section 233 of the Land Revenue Code. It is further opined that in form-G, there is an entry that big trees are standing over the subject land. There is clear opinion that Khasra No. 347 and 365 wherein the trees are standing, is not a forest land and the same is revenue land (Dakhal Rahit) belonging to the Department of

¶50

9

¶51

Revenue From perusal of the said Panchnamas and reports, it is crystal clear that the Khasra no. 347 and 365 are not the forest land and the same are the revenue land. The construction of 7.5MW is completed and the said hydroelectric plant has been made operational and the Company has not raised any construction over the Khasra No. 347 and 365. As such, the allegations levelled in the present case are baseless and without substance and accordingly the present petition being PIL is liable to be dismissed at the threshold being devoid of merit.

¶52

8. Issuance of notice to the respondent-Union of India was dispensed with on 19.05.2026 as the said respondent was duly represented by its counsel. However, this matter came to be listed on 18.06.2026 and 13.07.2026 but neither any instructions have been sought nor any return has been filed by the respondent-Union of India, till date.

¶53

9. Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and 7, placing reliance on the return filed, submits that the present being a Company under the ‘white category’ does not require any environmental clearance. The Company applied for land for construction of 7.5MW small hydroelectric Project which was granted by the State. The respondent-Company has not flouted any law of the land and the petition deserves to be dismissed as the respondent-Company has acted bonafide and in accordance with the permission and approvals granted by the competent authorities from time to time. The land which the petitioner is referring to was never utilized or used in any manner by the Company for the project. The various Panchnamas prepared by the authorities of the State itself goes to show that no construction of the powerhouse, penstock, forebay or switchyard has been carried out on Khasra No. 365 admeasuring 0.0550 hectare. It has been specifically denied that any non-forestry activity over Khasra No. 365 and 347 has

¶54

10

¶55

ever been carried out.

¶56

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶57

11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record.

¶58

12. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 is carrying out non-forestry activities over Khasra Nos.347 and 365 situated at Village Bhalupakhna, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, without obtaining prior approval under Section 2 of the Act of 1980. On the strength of the said allegation, the petitioner seeks a direction to stop the project, maintain status quo and constitute an independent enquiry committee. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is essentially discretionary. In a Public Interest Litigation, the Court is expected to interfere only when there exists credible material disclosing infringement of law affecting public interest.

¶59

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal , {(2010) 3 SCC 402}, has emphasised that before entertaining a Public Interest Litigation, the Court must satisfy itself regarding the bona fides of the petitioner and the existence of a genuine public cause supported by reliable material.

¶60

14. Tested on the aforesaid principles, we find that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are not borne out from the material subsequently collected by the competent authorities themselves. Although reliance has been placed upon the communication dated 09.02.2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer directing stoppage of alleged non-forestry work,

¶61

11

¶62

the record further reveals that after receipt of complaints submitted by the petitioner, detailed spot inspections were undertaken by the revenue and forest authorities. The Panchnama dated 23.03.2026 specifically records that no construction of powerhouse, penstock or switchyard existed over the subject land; no trees had been cut; and no illegal activity was found on Khasra No.365. Thereafter, another joint inspection conducted on 20.06.2026 by the Revenue and Forest authorities, in the presence of villagers, also concluded that no non-forestry activity was being carried out over the land in question. The respondents have further placed material indicating that Khasra Nos.347 and 365 are recorded in the revenue records as Government revenue land reserved for Nistar purposes, containing entries of "Bade Jhad Ke Jungle". The enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar also concluded that the said lands are revenue lands belonging to the Revenue Department and not notified forest lands. It has further been categorically stated that no component of the hydroelectric project has been constructed over these Khasra numbers and that the project has otherwise been established after obtaining the requisite permissions from the competent authorities.

¶63

15. The petitioner has not produced any independent material to demonstrate that the factual findings recorded in the successive inspection reports are either incorrect, mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations. Except for newspaper publications and the earlier communication dated 09.02.2024, there is no contemporaneous evidence showing that any construction presently exists over the land in question or that any non-forestry activity is continuing in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1980. Newspaper reports, by themselves, cannot constitute substantive evidence for recording findings of fact in writ proceedings.

¶64

12

¶65

16. We are also of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner necessarily involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, namely, the nature of the land, the actual location of the project components and whether any construction has been raised over the disputed Khasra numbers. Such disputed factual issues stand answered by repeated inspections conducted by the competent statutory authorities. In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would not ordinarily undertake a fact-finding enquiry or substitute the conclusions recorded by expert and statutory authorities in the absence of convincing material indicating arbitrariness or perversity. It is equally significant that the complaints submitted by the petitioner were not ignored. On the contrary, the authorities conducted repeated enquiries, prepared Panchnamas and submitted reports at different levels. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statutory authorities failed to discharge their legal obligations so as to warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus.

¶66

17. Having considered the entire material on record, we are unable to hold that the petitioner has established any continuing violation of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 or any other statutory provision. The allegations remain unsubstantiated and are contradicted by the official inspection reports placed before this Court. Consequently, no case is made out for issuance of the directions sought in the writ petition.

¶67

18. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed . The security amount deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited.

¶68

Sd/Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶69

Chandra

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Vs Ram Bai

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinit Sharan

Jeevanlal Dhobi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pratima Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnaresh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajasthan Transport Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited