Discontinuation of a government scheme renders a challenge to its implementation infructuous.

The petitioners claim to be in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1140 (8.694 hectares) in Village Gidhori, Korba, for approximately 60–70 years

Although the land is recorded as Government waste land, the petitioners maintain residential houses and cultivate paddy crops thereon

Under the State Government’s "Narwa, Garuwa, Ghuruwa & Badi" scheme, specifically the "Garuwa" component for constructing cow shelters (Gothans), Respondent No. 3 identified the subject land for construction despite it being occupied and disputed

Construction activities, including fencing and dumping of materials, commenced in 2020, prompting the petitioners to file representations and subsequently this writ petition seeking to restrain the construction and remove existing structures

1. Whether the respondents’ construction of a Gothan on land claimed to be in the settled possession of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal?

2. Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication following the State’s discontinuation of the underlying government scheme?

The court's decision turned on the administrative principle regarding the cessation of a cause of action. It considered the State's policy decision to discontinue the "Gothan Scheme" introduced by the previous administration

The court applied the procedural doctrine of "infructuous" litigation, which holds that a case loses its underlying legal dispute when the challenged action or policy is withdrawn or ceases to exist, thereby rendering a judicial decision unnecessary

The petitioners argued that the identification of their occupied land for the Gothan scheme was factually erroneous and infringed upon their settled possession and agricultural rights

The State counsel clarified that the Gothan Scheme had been officially discontinued by the current government, and consequently, all construction activities pursuant to that specific scheme had ceased

The Court reasoned that since the primary grievance—the construction of a cow shelter under a specific government mandate—was no longer being pursued due to the scheme's termination, the cause of action as originally pleaded did not subsist

The Court found that the factual basis for the writ had evaporated, rendering the prayers for injunctive relief moot

The Court disposed of the petition without addressing the merits of the petitioners' claim to the land

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to avail themselves of appropriate legal remedies if any other grievances regarding their possession or the land's status remain