Construction on land expressly reserved for a school in the sanctioned layout is not impermissible diversion of plantation land.

The petitioner, a resident and house allottee in the Taalpuri Twin-City housing scheme, challenged the proposed construction of a school on land which she claimed was earmarked for plantation in the approved layout plan.

She contended that the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal had allotted approximately 5,000 sq. metres to Respondent No. 3 for construction of a school without obtaining prior approval for changing the sanctioned land use, contrary to Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 1984.

The Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal disputed this assertion and maintained that the sanctioned plan separately provided for 5,000 sq. metres for a school and also reserved a distinct area for organised open space.

It contended that the petitioner had relied on incorrect information supplied under the Right to Information Act.

The State supported the Mandal’s position.

The Court examined the competing layout plans and related documents.

Whether the respondents were unlawfully changing the sanctioned use of land earmarked for plantation or organised open space by constructing a school on it.

Whether the construction of the school was authorised by the sanctioned layout plan, which reserved 5,000 sq. metres for school purposes.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ restraining the respondents from constructing the school on the disputed land.

The Court considered Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 1984, relied upon by the petitioner, concerning the requirement of leaving open space for recreational purposes in residential development.

It applied the principle that construction and land use must conform to the layout plan sanctioned by the competent authority.

The Court also considered the principles in Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577, concerning protection of land reserved for environmental and recreational purposes, and Anjuman-E-Shiate Ali v. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group, (2020) 20 SCC 698.

However, it held that those decisions were distinguishable because the sanctioned plan in the present case itself reserved land for a school.

The Court found that the petitioner’s principal challenge was based on the assertion that the school was being constructed on plantation land.

However, the map annexed by the petitioner was not the map approved by the competent authority.

The sanctioned plan produced by Respondent No. 2 expressly identified 5,000 sq. metres as school area and separately provided for organised open space.

The Court further noted that the RTI sketch relied upon by the petitioner showed 1,978 sq. metres for the school and 3,026 sq. metres for plantation, but this information was inconsistent with the sanctioned plan and had led to the filing of the petition on an incorrect factual basis.

Since the respondents asserted that the school occupied only 5,004 sq. metres upon measurement, and the sanctioned plan reserved 5,000 sq. metres for that purpose, the Court found no established change of land use or encroachment upon plantation or open-space land.

The environmental protection precedents therefore did not apply.

The petitioner failed to establish that the respondents had diverted plantation land or exceeded the area sanctioned for the school.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs.