JITENDRA KUMAR SAHU vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010039732025 2026:CGHC:38795-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.02
18:30:01 +0530
ALOK
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 24 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Dharamlal Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation-
Journalist, R/o Patharri-Para, Sahu Basti, Ward No. 17, Near Power House
School, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, Pin 496577. Mobile No.
9179697845 / 8319270061
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce And Industry
Vanijya Bhawan, 16, Akbar Road, New Delhi, India 110011, Email-
Www.Ncwwomenhelpline.In
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. A Public Limited Company Incorporated
And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered
Address At- Aluminium Sadan Core 6 Scope Office Complex 7 Lodhi Road,
New Delhi, Delhi, India- 110003 And Also Having Office At- Balco Nagar,
Korba, Chhattisgarh, India, 495684
4 - Vedanta Limited A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered
Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Address At- 1st
Floor, C Wing, Unit 103, Corporate Avenue Atul Projects, Chakala, Andheri
(East) Mumbai- 400093
5 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner A
Body Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956 Having Its Office At- Saket Bhawan, Iti Chowk,
Rampur, Korba, 495677, E-Mail- [email protected]
.. Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5. : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02/09/2026
1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ Union
of India, Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
State/respondent No. 2, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, along with Mr.
Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4
and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
2. The present writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has
been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately
stop all activities on Government and forest land at
Village Kohadiya, Korba Chhattisgarh;
B) Direct the respondents to remove all illegal
encroachments from Government and forest land;
C) Issue appropriate directions for the restoration of the
encroached Government and forest land to its original
condition;
D) Direct the Respondents to comply with
environmental laws and Supreme Court directives;

3
E) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of
justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case that the present Public Interest Litigation has
been filed by the petitioner, a journalist and RTI activist, seeking protection of
Government and forest land situated at Village Kohadiya, District Korba,
particularly land bearing Khasra Nos. 486/1 and 491/1, which are stated to be
recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle”, from alleged unauthorized
encroachment and use in connection with the expansion project of
respondent No.3-Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO). It is alleged
that respondent Nos.3 and 4, either directly or through their contractors, have
utilized the aforesaid Government/forest land for installation of temporary
concrete batching plants, labour hutments and other construction-related
activities without obtaining the requisite statutory permissions. The petitioner,
having obtained relevant information under the RTI Act and upon verification
of the site, approached the concerned authorities by submitting a complaint
dated 28.08.2023, and also lodged a non-cognizable complaint before the
concerned police station; however, according to the petitioner, no effective
action has been taken. The present petition has, therefore, been filed seeking
appropriate directions for stopping the alleged unauthorized activities,
removal of encroachment and restoration and protection of the Government
and forest land in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
present Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the larger public interest for
protection of Government and forest land situated at Village Kohadiya, District
Korba, particularly Khasra Nos. 486/1 and 491/1, which, as per the revenue
records and documents obtained under the RTI Act, are recorded as “Bade
Jhad Ka Jungle”. It is submitted that respondent No.3-BALCO, in connection

4
with its expansion project, has utilized the aforesaid Government/forest land,
either directly or through its contractors, for installation of temporary concrete
batching plants, labour hutments and other construction-related activities and
has also constructed a wall thereon without obtaining the requisite statutory
permissions. Learned counsel further submits that the Municipal Corporation,
Korba had sealed the site of the batching plant on 31.01.2023 and imposed a
penalty in respect of the unauthorized activity, despite which no effective
steps have been taken for removal of the alleged encroachment and
restoration of the land.
5. Learned counsel further submits that merely describing the batching
plant or other construction activities as temporary does not dispense with the
requirement of obtaining requisite statutory permissions for use of
Government or forest land. It is submitted that the continued use of the
aforesaid land for industrial and construction-related activities adversely
affects the environment, forest vegetation and public property and is contrary
to the constitutional mandate for protection of the environment and forests.
Learned counsel submits that despite the representations made by the
petitioner before the concerned authorities, no effective action has been
taken to protect the said land, remove the alleged encroachment or restore
the land to its original condition. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may direct the Respondents to stop all unauthorized activities, remove the
encroachment, restore and protect the Government and forest land and
ensure that no activity is undertaken thereon except in accordance with law
and after obtaining all requisite statutory permissions.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-
State submits that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding

5
encroachment over Government and forest land and unauthorized industrial
activities are matters requiring verification by the competent revenue, forest
and other authorities. It is submitted that merely recording the land as “Bade
Jhad Ka Jungle” in the revenue records cannot, by itself, establish the
allegation of encroachment or unauthorized use without proper demarcation
and spot verification. He further submits that the State authorities are
conscious of their statutory duties relating to protection of Government and
forest land and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, if any
unauthorized occupation or violation is found upon due verification. It is also
submitted that the representations made by the petitioner have been brought
to the notice of the concerned authorities and the factual position can be
examined by the competent authority. He , therefore, submits that the petition
may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to verify the
status, ownership, demarcation and use of the land in question and, in case
any violation or unauthorized activity is found, to take appropriate action
strictly in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4, Bharat
Aluminium Company Limited and Vedanta Limited, submits that the present
Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable as the Petitioner has suppressed
material facts regarding the status and possession of land bearing Khasra
Nos.486/1 and 491/1, Village Kohadiya, District Korba, which forms part of
the Government land allotted to Respondent No.3 and possession whereof
was handed over by the State Government during the period from 1968 to
1975. It is submitted that the validity of such possession has already been
upheld by this Court in earlier proceedings. Learned counsel further submits
that the allegation of encroachment is incorrect and that the aforesaid land
has been notified for industrial and allied purposes and has been used for

6
industrial activities for several decades. It is further submitted that requisite
permissions for the activities undertaken by the answering Respondents,
including the batching plant, have been obtained from the competent
authorities and that the land was allotted and possession thereof was handed
over prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,
with the requisite premium and compensation having been paid. It is,
therefore, submitted that there is no unauthorized encroachment or illegal
industrial activity on the part of the answering Respondents and that the
petition is based on incorrect and incomplete facts.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 further
submits that the Petitioner had himself approached the learned Tahsildar,
Korba by application dated 14.12.2023 raising the same allegations regarding
encroachment over Khasra Nos.486/1 and 491/1 and establishment of a
batching plant and labour hutments, but has not fairly disclosed the complete
status of the said proceedings before this Court. It is further submitted that
the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.5553 of 2022, which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023, wherein
it was observed that the petitioner had no locus as no right, much less any
fundamental right, of the petitioner was infringed and that the State
authorities had already taken remedial measures. Learned counsel submits
that the suppression of these material facts and repeated invocation of
different forums in respect of the same grievance shows that the present PIL
lacks bona fides and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary
costs.
9. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The

7
grievance raised by the petitioner is essentially with regard to the alleged
encroachment over Government/forest land bearing Khasra Nos.486/1 and
491/1, Village Kohadiya, District Korba, and its alleged use for construction-
related activities. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have specifically
disputed the allegation of encroachment and have stated that the land in
question forms part of the land allotted to respondent No.3, possession
whereof was handed over by the State Government during the period from
1968 to 1975. It has also been submitted that the status and possession of
the said land have already been considered in earlier proceedings before this
Court. Thus, the disputed questions regarding the status, possession and
lawful use of the land cannot be conclusively determined in the present Public
Interest Litigation merely on the basis of the allegations made by the
petitioner.
10. We also find that the petitioner had approached the learned
Tahsildar, Korba by application dated 14.12.2023 raising substantially the
same grievance regarding the alleged encroachment over Khasra Nos.486/1
and 491/1 and establishment of the batching plant and labour hutments. The
petitioner had also earlier approached before the learned Single Judge of this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5553 of 2022, which came to be dismissed vide
order dated 05.01.2023. In the said proceedings, this Court had noticed that
the petitioner had no locus as no right, much less any fundamental right, of
the petitioner was infringed and that the State authorities had already taken
remedial measures. The aforesaid facts, coupled with the disputed nature of
the claims raised in the present petition, do not persuade us to exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present
PIL.

8
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view
that the petitioner has failed to establish any clear case of unauthorized
encroachment or illegal activity warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Consequently, no interference is called for in exercise of the Public Interest
Litigation jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Accordingly, the present Public Interest Litigation is dismissed .
However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not preclude
the competent authorities from taking appropriate action in accordance with
law, if any unauthorized occupation or violation is found upon due verification.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok