V. S. George vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 has invited applications for allotment of houses, flats etc. under a Composite Housing Scheme in twin city/ Taalpuri, Bhilai as per the layout map. Petitioner has also booked a house named as ‘Mogra’. According to the approved layout plan, in front of Mogra-225 to Mogra-252, area of 5000 sq.mt., a plantation site has been clearly marked. When petitioner came to know that Respondent No. 2 is allotting the land to Respondent No. 3 for the purpose of construction of school, which is reserved for plantation, had sought information under the Right to Information Act and then it came to the knowledge of petitioner that the land reserved for plantation has been illegally allotted to Respondent No. 3 for construction of school. She contended that the action on the part of respondents-authorities of allotting the land reserved for plantation for the purpose of construction of school is unjust, arbitrary and bad in law. Respondent No. 2 once sold the plot as per the approved plan in the scheme sanctioned by the competent authorities showing the open land reserved for the plantation, then the Respondent No. 2 ought not to have changed the use of land than that of sanctioned plan. Respondent No. 2 could not have changed the sanctioned plan without prior approval of the competent authority. According to the petitioner, before transferring the land to Respondent No. 3, a land reserved for plantation, no prior permission or approval has been taken from the competent authority. Relying upon Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 1984, it is argued that when the land is to be developed as residential area, it is for the developer to left ‘open place’ for recreational purpose. Petitioner made a representation before the authorities, however, no action has been taken and therefore this writ petition is filed. Purpose of leaving open land for plantation is to maintain ecological balance and for hygienic atmosphere not only for the residents of the colony but also for the benefit of residents of nearby areas. Respondent No. 2 had sold the land to Respondent No. 3, reserved for public purpose illegally. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Virendra Gaur and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 577 and in Anjuman-E-Shiate Ali and another vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and others reported in (2020) 20 SCC 698.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the development of the area as also the sanctioned plan is not being interfered or changed. In the plan which is sanctioned by the competent authority, the land admeasuring 5000 sq.mt. is reserved for school and in the map Annexure R-2/2, there is separate area reserved for organized open space. As it is a township in the plan, there are areas reserved for apartments, organized open space, road area, amenities, school area, utility area, utility shopping area and utility sub-station STP etc. An open area for the organized open space and land for school is reserved. He contended that the information under the RTI based upon which petitioner has filed this writ petition is not correct information provided by the Information Officer as per sanctioned plan. For his wrongful act he was also served with a show-cause notice which is filed as Annexure R-2/3. Pleadings made in the writ petition is misconceived and contrary to the sanctioned plan.

Learned counsel for the State supported the submission made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of the writ petition.

From the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the submission of learned counsel for petitioner as discussed above, it is apparent that the main grievance of petitioner is with regard to construction of school over the area reserved for plantation, as per sanctioned plan.

The map, Annexure P-1, which is enclosed along with writ petition is not the map approved by the competent authority. In the second map enclosed there is separate column under the ‘correction this color’ which specifically provides that the school area as 5000 sq.mt. and further Annexure P-2 which is letter written by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning filed would show that it is a sanctioned letter for development of land measuring 129.01 acres. In para-13, it is mentioned as according to the direction of the State Government open land on the side of the road it is mandatory to use it for plantation. In para-16, it provides that community hall, club, school etc there should be provision for the specially abled persons.

The document at page 22, part of Annexure P-4, which is a sketch issued under the signature of Right to Information provides for area reserved for school as 1978 sq.mt. and for plantation it is 3026 sq.mt. The said information provided in the aforementioned sketch appears to be contrary to the sanctioned plan which is filed by Respondent No. 2 as Annexure R-2/2, wherein in ‘correction this color’ clearly provides area of school to be 5000 sq.mt. It appears that the petitioner on the basis of wrong information supplied to him, has filed this writ petition stating that Respondents No. 2 & 3 are using more land then it is reserved for the purpose of school. Respondent No. 2 has also enclosed document as Annexure R-2/3 which is letter dated 25.07.2025, in the form of show-cause notice, issued to Public Information Officer for giving contradictory information.

The decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Virendra Gaur (supra) is on different facts. In that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the open land reserved for environmental and recreational purposes has been used for the purpose of construction of Dharmshala. The case of Anjuman-E-Shiate Ali (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case because in the case at hand in the sanctioned plan itself 5000 sq.mt. is reserved for the purpose of construction of school for the residents of the colony to be developed by Respondent No. 2.

It is not the case of petitioner that the measurement which is done for the purpose of construction of school is much more the area reserved for the school, however, Respondent No. 2 in its reply has clearly mentioned that upon measuring the area it has come as 5004 sq.mt. and therefore school is being constructed on 5004 sq.mt. of area alone. In the sanctioned plan which is enclosed along with reply as also relied upon by the petitioner itself marks a land admeasuring 5000 sq.mt. reserved for school.

For the foregoing discussion, writ petition being sans merit, which is liable to be and is hereby accordingly dismissed.

No order as to cost.