[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gram Panchayat Mohgaon vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11581-DB
NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.03.11
WA No. 210 of 2026
17:04:53 +0530
1 - Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Mohgaon, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Hirmat Bai Dhruw W/o Late Pawan Kumar Dhruw Aged About
26 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, R/o Village Mohgaon,
Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3 - Govinddeo Agarwal S/o Late Ram Gopal Agrawal Aged About 74
Years R/o A-205, Maruti Solitaire, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4 - Palchand Sonwani S/o Sadhram Aged About 52 Years Tahsil Palari,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana, Dutiya Charan
Karya Sambag Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Bhagat Singh Chowk,
Opposite Ghandi Udyan, Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
11.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well
as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the respondents/State.
2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 15.01.2026
(Gram Panchayat Mohgaon and Others vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPC No. 6123 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by
appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The facts of the case according to the appellants is that appellant
No.1 Gram Panchayat, Mohgaon, appellant No.2 who is the
Sarpanch of the said village, and appellants No.3 and 4 alleging
that the State Government has undertaken construction of a canal
under the Rajeev Gandhi Sanwardhan Scheme (Samoda
Diversion). The said canal project is adversely affecting them. The
record, however, reveals that the project was initiated pursuant to
a survey conducted in the year 2007, on the basis of which a
Detailed Project Report (DPR) was prepared and thereafter the
programme and map of the canal were duly approved by the
competent authorities, following which the construction work was
commenced by the State Government. Since the inception of the
project, the appellants have been raising objections with regard to
the construction of the said canal and have therefore approached
this Court by filing WPC No.6123 of 2025, which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.01.2026. Hence,
this writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single
Judge has erred in holding that the petition was not maintainable.
It is submitted that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were duly authorized to
file the writ petition and had a vested interest in the reliefs claimed
therein. The appellants further submit that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that the petition was not in the nature of
a Public Interest Litigation, but was filed alleging infringement of
the rights of the appellants themselves. Therefore, the
observation of the learned Single Judge that appellants Nos. 3
and 4 had personal interest and had attempted to give the petition
a colour of public interest by taking assistance of appellants Nos.
1 and 2 is stated to be erroneous and contrary to the record. He
further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider
that appellant No. 2 was duly authorized to institute the writ
petition and that the cause of action arose when the authorities,
after a lapse of about 21 years, suddenly revived the project and
proceeded to take action, despite the project having remained
dormant for a long period. According to the appellants, in such
circumstances the jurisdiction of this Court was rightly invoked,
however the writ petition was dismissed at the threshold without
proper consideration of the issues raised. He also submits that the
finding of the learned Single Judge that the project work had been
stalled causing financial burden on the public exchequer is
contrary to the record, as there was no interim order granted at
the instance of the appellants at any point of time. It is further
urged that the appellants had placed on record a technical expert
report supporting their claims, which was discarded without any
justification. The appellants further contend that earlier directions
issued in WPC No. 3523/2024 could not have been ignored by the
respondent authorities. It is thus submitted that the impugned
order suffers from serious legal infirmities and, if not set-aside,
would result in grave injustice to the appellants.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents / State opposes the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that
the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the
matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called
for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the
question as to whether the canal should be constructed in a
straight or curved alignment falls within the domain of technical
experts and the project has been undertaken only after finalization
of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared on the basis of
expert assessment. The learned Single Judge further held that in
absence of any cogent material demonstrating arbitrariness or
illegality in the execution of the project, the Court cannot interfere
in matters involving technical expertise. It was also observed that
due to filing of the writ petition, the project work had been stalled,
thereby causing financial burden on the public exchequer, and the
contention of the appellants regarding denial of opportunity of
hearing was also not acceptable as construction of the canal did
not infringe any fundamental rights of the appellants and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants
herein.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition
as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed
by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd Sd/- /
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
