Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Appeal in Hasdeo Aranya Mining Dispute, Upholds Earlier Ruling

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 270 | 2026:CGHC:18175-DB

April 21, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by members of the Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, challenging the dismissal of their earlier petition against coal mining activities in the Parsa East and Kete Basen (PEKB) coal block.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the October 8, 2025 order of a Single Judge, ruling that the appeal lacked merit and could not be entertained at this stage.

The dispute centres on forest land in Hasdeo Aranya, a densely forested region in Chhattisgarh, where mining operations have been carried out by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The appellants, who are residents of Ghatbarra village and members of the local forest rights committee, argued that their community forest rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were violated when approvals were granted for mining and forest land diversion.

They contended that the revocation of previously granted community forest rights and the alleged absence of Gram Sabha consent rendered the mining approvals illegal. The appellants also argued that the ecological and cultural importance of the forest could not be compensated monetarily.

However, the High Court found that the challenge was significantly delayed and suffered from critical legal defects. It noted that the appellants had failed to challenge key foundational approvals granted as far back as 2011 and 2012, which formed the basis of subsequent mining activities. The court observed that once such foundational orders remain unchallenged, later attempts to contest consequential actions are not maintainable.

The Bench further held that the appellants had not established proper legal standing to pursue the case, particularly after the original petitioner withdrew from the proceedings. It also recorded that there was suppression of material facts, including non-disclosure of earlier litigation concerning the same project.

Importantly, the court emphasised that similar issues related to land acquisition and mining in the same region had already been adjudicated in earlier writ petitions decided in 2022. Relying on settled principles of res judicata and finality of litigation, the Bench held that such issues cannot be reopened through indirect or collateral challenges.

The court also reiterated that while the Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides procedural safeguards, it does not override the State’s authority over minerals beneath forest land. It noted that mining approvals had been granted by competent authorities and that Phase-I mining had already been completed, with Phase-II approvals in place.

Addressing the environmental concerns raised by the appellants, the court acknowledged the significance of ecological preservation but held that once a project has reached an advanced stage with statutory approvals, courts must balance environmental considerations with broader public interest.

Concluding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate enforceable rights or legal infirmities in the approvals, the High Court dismissed the appeal without costs, affirming the earlier judgment.

Case Reference : WA No. 313 of 2026 (Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti and Others vs Union of India and Others); Counsels: For Appellants: Ms. Shalini Gera with Mr. Akash Kundu and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocates; For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (UOI): Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General with Mr. Rishabh Singh Dev, CGC; For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 (State): Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General; For Respondent No. 5: Dr. Nirmal Shukla and Mr. Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla and Mr. Dinesh Bole, Advocates.