RAJESH RANGARI vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010489422025 2026:CGHC:38997-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.03
18:48:43
+0530
ALOK
SHARMA
WPPIL No. 101 of 2025
Rajesh Rangari S/o Kanhaiya Lal Rangari Aged About 37 Years R/o
Ward No. 7, Saliha Para, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Environment And
Forests, Government Of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Forest And Climate Change, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Kanker Circle, District Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
4 - Divisional Forest Officer East Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
5 - Deputy Divisional Forest Officer East Bhanupratappur, District Uttar
Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
6 - Forest Range Officer Range Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Range Officer (Production) Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
8 - Collector District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

2
9 - M/s Godawari Power And Ispat Limited Through Its Managing
Director, 428/2, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Siltara, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
.. Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate.
For Respondent No.
: Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate.
1/Union of India
For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03/09/2026
1. Heard Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1/ Union of India, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional
Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The present writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has
been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1.This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the approval
granted under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation)
Act to the Respondent No. 9 Company for 32.36
hectares of forest land number 608 at Village
Kachhe, Bhanupratappur;
10.2. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for
records of the illegal cutting of trees at 32.36

3
hectares of forest land number 608 at Village
Kachhe, Bhanupratappur from the possession of
Respondent. State;
10.3. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus, order/orders
quashing/setting aside the final approval under
Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, dated
19.02.2015 issued by Respondent No. 1 Ministry to
Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 9;
10.4. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondent No. 9 Company to
compensate the Respondent State for illegal
cutting of 4983 trees in 32.36 hectares of reserve
forest land no. 608 at Village Kachhe,
Bhanupratappur;
10.5. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the notice (Annexure P/13) calling for public
hearing for expansion of mining area granted to
Respondent No. 9;
10.6. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection and
preservation of forest land situated in Reserved Forest Compartment
No. 608, Village Kachhe, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh,
particularly the 32.36 hectares of forest land diverted in favour of
Respondent No. 9–M/s Godawari Power & Ispat Limited for expansion
of its Ari-Dongri Iron Ore Mines. The petitioner has alleged that, as per
the Forest Department records, 11,765 trees having circumference of

4
more than 20 centimetres were standing in the said area in 2015,
whereas subsequent records disclosed that 5,695 trees were not found
during inspection in 2018 and, upon joint inspection conducted in May,
2023, only 712 trees were found standing and 4,983 trees remained
unaccounted for. Despite the petitioner’s complaint dated 03.05.2023
before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kanker Circle, alleging illegal
felling/disappearance of trees and seeking appropriate action, no
effective action was taken. The petitioner has further raised concern
regarding the proposed expansion of the mining lease area from 138.96
hectares to 213.01 hectares. The grievance of the petitioner is,
therefore, against the alleged illegal felling/disappearance of trees from
the diverted forest land and the inaction of the concerned authorities in
taking appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and other
applicable laws.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material
available on record, including the reports of the Forest Department,
clearly demonstrates that a substantial number of trees which were
existing on the 32.36 hectares of forest land diverted in favour of
Respondent No. 9 have subsequently been found missing. It is
submitted that although the Forest Department itself noticed the
disappearance of the trees and directed an inquiry for fixing
responsibility, no effective action has been taken till date. Learned
counsel submits that the alleged felling/disappearance of the trees from
the reserved forest area, without proper supervision and in violation of

5
the conditions imposed while granting approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, is a serious issue concerning protection of the
environment and forest ecology. It is further submitted that the inaction
on the part of the respondent authorities is contrary to their
constitutional obligation under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ,
(2006) 1 SCC 1. He , therefore, prays that appropriate directions may
be issued to the competent authorities to conduct a fair and effective
inquiry, fix responsibility for the missing/felled trees, take action in
accordance with law and ensure protection and preservation of the
remaining forest land.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State submits that the Forest Department had duly followed
the prescribed procedure in respect of the diversion and felling of trees
over the subject 32.36 hectares of forest land. It is submitted that
11,765 trees were marked for felling, out of which 6,070 trees had
already been felled and 5,695 trees were reported to be remaining.
Upon noticing a discrepancy, an inquiry was conducted and the report
dated 02.06.2023 recorded that only 712 trees were found standing,
whereas 4,983 trees were not found at the site. Thereafter, a fresh
inquiry was constituted and, as the report dated 19.11.2025 was found
inconsistent with the earlier report, the Divisional Forest Officer
recorded his dissent and directed a further inquiry vide letter dated
20.11.2025.

6
6. Learned counsel further submits that the inquiry is still in
progress and reminders have been issued for submission of the report.
It is also submitted that action has already been initiated against
Respondent No. 9 and a demand of Rs.3,06,341/- has been raised
towards the value of timber and fine in respect of timber allegedly buried
during construction of a road in the mining area. Learned counsel
submits that, considering that the matter relates to tree felling
undertaken more than ten years ago and the competent authority is
already seized of the matter for determining the factual position and
fixing responsibility, no further interference is warranted at this stage. It
is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, may
kindly be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on
record. The main grievance raised by the petitioner relates to the
alleged disappearance/felling of trees from the 32.36 hectares of forest
land situated in Reserved Forest Compartment No. 608, Village
Kachhe, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, which was diverted in favour of
Respondent No. 9 for mining purposes. The record indicates that,
pursuant to the tree-felling plan, 11,765 trees were identified, out of
which 6,070 trees had already been felled and, as per the subsequent
departmental record, 5,695 trees were found to be remaining. However,
during the inspection conducted thereafter, only 712 trees were found
standing and 4,983 trees were not found at the site. The Forest
Department, having noticed the aforesaid discrepancy, has already

7
initiated an inquiry to ascertain the factual position and to fix
responsibility for the trees found missing.
8. It is further borne out from the return filed on behalf of the
respondent-State that, since the report dated 19.11.2025 was not found
to be consistent with the earlier report dated 02.06.2023, the competent
authority recorded its dissent and directed a fresh inquiry vide
communication dated 20.11.2025. The said inquiry is stated to be in
progress and reminders have also been issued for submission of the
report. It has further been brought to our notice that action has already
been initiated in respect of the timber allegedly buried during
construction of the road in the mining area and a demand of
Rs.3,06,341/- towards the value of timber and fine has been raised
against Respondent No. 9. In view of the steps already taken by the
competent authority, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present
Public Interest Litigation with a direction to the concerned authorities to
conclude the pending inquiry expeditiously, ascertain the exact factual
position, fix responsibility for the trees found to have been illegally
felled/missing, if any, and take appropriate action against the persons
responsible strictly in accordance with law. The authorities shall also
ensure that the forest land in question is duly protected and that no
activity is undertaken in violation of the statutory provisions or the
conditions attached to the approval granted for diversion of the forest
land.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the matter concerns
protection and preservation of forest and the ecological balance of the

8
area. Therefore, while disposing of the present petition, we hope and
trust that the respondent-State and its Forest Department shall take all
necessary and effective measures for protection of the remaining forest
and shall also take appropriate steps for compensatory and restorative
plantation in accordance with the applicable rules and norms. We
further hope and trust that the State will take an initiative to ensure that,
as far as practicable, a greater number of trees are planted than the
number of trees found to have been cut/felled or otherwise lost,
particularly in and around the affected area, so as to compensate for the
ecological loss and improve the green cover of the region.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. All pending interlocutory
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok