Chhattisgarh HC Disposes Suo Motu PIL on Illegal Murum Mining from Army Land Near Bilaspur

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur closed its suo motu PIL after lab reports showed murum in private colonies did not match samples from Army land near Chakarbhatha Airport.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur disposed of a suo motu Public Interest Litigation it had initiated in December 2024 following newspaper reports alleging large-scale illegal excavation of murum from Army land near Chakarbhatha Airport, Bilaspur. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal concluded, after examining laboratory reports prepared by the Public Works Department and affidavits filed by the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh, that the purpose of the PIL stood substantially achieved. The laboratory findings showed that murum samples collected from the private colonies in question were not similar to the murum available on the Defence land.

What the Newspaper Reports Alleged

The PIL originated from reports published in Dainik Bhaskar, Bilaspur edition, on 24 December 2024. The reports carried headlines alleging, in Hindi, that murum had been stolen from Army land and was being spread across colonies under construction, and that a 300-acre colony was coming up on Raipur Road, Bilaspur, with a 60-acre road built using that murum.

The reports specifically named the area around village Telsara near Chakarbhatha Airport as the source of the alleged illegal excavation. They further alleged that the murum was being transported and used in the development of private residential colonies on Raipur Road, Bilaspur, causing loss to public property and raising concerns about illegal mining on Defence land. A subsequent report dated 31 December 2024 raised additional allegations regarding irregularities in the grant of royalty slips.

Taking note of the gravity of the allegations and the public interest involved, the court took suo motu cognizance and registered WPPIL No. 111 of 2024.

Initial Directions and Respondents Impleaded

By an order dated 26 December 2024, the court took up the matter for hearing and issued notice to the Union of India and State authorities. One of the reports specifically alleged that illegally excavated murum had been used in the development of Fortune Element Colony. Accordingly, the court directed the Registry to implead Fortune Element Colony, through its proprietor Shri Pawan Agrawal, as respondent No. 10. The Union of India and the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Government of Chhattisgarh, were directed to file personal affidavits.

The respondents before the court included the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence; the State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary; the Secretaries for Mines and Minerals, Revenue and Disaster, and Transport Departments; the Collector Bilaspur; the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur; the District Mining Officer, Bilaspur; the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur; and Fortune Element Colony through Shri Pawan Agrawal.

State Action Disclosed on 9 January 2025

When the matter came up on 9 January 2025, the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals filed a personal affidavit disclosing steps already taken. Notices had been issued to builders and colonisers alleged to have used the murum; the Mining Department had conducted inspections and physically verified quantities at construction sites; royalty slips and transit passes produced by builders were being scrutinised; and communications had been sent to the issuing authorities to verify the genuineness of those documents.

The affidavit also disclosed that joint teams comprising officers of the Mining, Police, and Revenue Departments had been constituted for regular patrolling, and temporary check-posts had been established to prevent illegal excavation and transportation of minor minerals.

Counsel for respondent No. 10 pointed out that, though several colonisers had been named in the newspaper reports, notice had been issued only to his client. The court responded by directing the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals to issue notices to all colonisers allegedly using the illegally excavated murum. The court also directed the State Government to explain the scientific mechanism adopted for determining whether the murum found in the colonies was the same as that excavated from the Defence land.

Fortune Element Colony Denies Allegations; Defence Affidavit Reveals Prior Communications

On 3 February 2025, respondent No. 10 filed a detailed affidavit denying all the allegations. The affidavit stated that murum used in Fortune Element Colony had been lawfully procured from authorised sources after payment of royalty, and that the respondent held all requisite statutory permissions for colony development, including approvals from the Nagar Panchayat, the Town and Country Planning Department, the Collector Bilaspur, and the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Copies of royalty receipts, procurement bills, and transit passes were referred to in support.

On the same date, the Union of India also filed a detailed affidavit through a competent Defence officer. The affidavit disclosed that the illegal excavation from Defence land had first come to the notice of the Defence authorities during the process of handing over land for the development of Chakarbhatha Airport. The Defence authorities had written to the District Administration on 9 April 2024 and 30 April 2024, requesting immediate intervention to prevent illegal mining. The issue was again discussed in a meeting chaired by the Collector, Bilaspur, in December 2024, after which regular patrolling of the Defence land by Defence authorities commenced.

The Additional Advocate General informed the court that murum samples from the Defence land had been collected and forwarded to the Public Works Department laboratory for scientific examination and comparison with the murum in the colonies under construction. The court granted time to the State Government to place the laboratory report on record. A further two weeks were granted by order dated 21 February 2025 on the State's request.

Laboratory Reports and Final Affidavit

The matter was next taken up on 11 February 2026. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, filed a further affidavit enclosing the laboratory reports and the Collector Bilaspur's report. The laboratory examination by the Public Works Department covered murum samples collected from the Defence land and from three colonies: Fortune Buildcon, Ameya Ventures, and Sunrise Associates.

According to the laboratory report, the samples collected from those three colonies were not found to be similar to the murum available on the Defence land. The affidavit also disclosed that continuous patrolling and monitoring through joint Revenue, Police, and Mining Department teams was ongoing, and that cases of illegal excavation and transportation were being registered wherever violations were detected under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

A permanent monitoring mechanism had also been evolved by the District Administration to prevent illegal mining in and around the Chakarbhatha Airport area. Joint inspection teams were conducting regular surveillance, temporary check-posts remained operational, and violations were being prosecuted under the 1957 Act.

Court's Assessment Before Disposal

The Division Bench considered the affidavits filed by the Union of India and the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, the Collector Bilaspur's report, the laboratory reports of the Public Works Department, and all material placed on record during the proceedings.

The court observed that the object of the suo motu PIL was not merely to examine the newspaper allegations, but also to ensure effective protection of Defence land from illegal excavation, prevent unlawful exploitation of minor minerals, and evolve an effective administrative mechanism to prevent recurrence. The bench found that both the Union of India and the State Government had taken effective and coordinated measures toward that objective.

The bench stated that it was satisfied that the purpose for which the suo motu PIL was initiated stood substantially achieved and that no further monitoring was required, taking into account the affidavits, the laboratory reports, the statement recorded in the order dated 22 April 2026, and the State counsel's submission that no further incident of illegal mining from the Defence land had been reported.

The court made it clear that protection of Defence land and prevention of illegal mining constitute continuing statutory obligations. It specifically reserved liberty to revive the proceedings: “if any serious lapse, negligence or recurrence of illegal excavation from the Defence land is brought to the notice of this Court in future.”

Outcome

The suo motu PIL, WPPIL No. 111 of 2024, was disposed of by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on 15 July 2026. The court expressed its hope and trust that the respondent authorities would continue to maintain strict vigilance over the Defence land and ensure effective implementation of statutory provisions relating to the prevention of illegal mining, excavation, transportation, and storage of minor minerals. Liberty to revive the proceedings was expressly preserved in the event of any future lapse or recurrence.