Chandrapur: A potentially explosive land dispute has erupted in Ghugus, with Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd facing serious allegations of encroaching upon land valued at nearly Rs 7 crore belonging to Shantinagar residents and allegedly blocking a public road to facilitate construction of a private hospital. The controversy has raised disturbing questions over land ownership, public access, municipal approvals and the accountability of the local civic administration.
BJP group leader Meena Chand Morpaka has lodged a formal complaint with the Chief Officer of Ghugus Municipal Council, demanding legal action against the company, restoration of the public road and an impartial investigation into the role of the municipal administration.
The allegations are particularly significant as they revolve around a land arrangement dating back three decades and a public road reportedly developed using funds under the PMKKKY scheme.
1996 agreement under scanner
According to Morpaka, Lloyds Metals and Shantinagar residents entered into an agreement on May 14, 1996, under which the company was required to purchase 1.38 hectares of land and distribute it among project-affected families.
The company subsequently secured approval for a layout comprising 62 plots. However, around 2,600 square metres (27,975 square feet) of land was allegedly segregated and designated as an area reserved for future development.
Morpaka has questioned the subsequent utilisation of this reserved land, alleging that property intended to serve the interests of Shantinagar residents has now become the centre of a contentious private hospital project.
Public road allegedly demolished to facilitate hospital
The most serious allegation concerns a public road connecting Chandrapur Road with Shantinagar, which reportedly passed through the disputed land.
According to the complaint, the then Gram Panchayat had approved the road’s concretisation through a resolution in 2019. The road was subsequently constructed under the PMKKKY scheme, ostensibly providing residents with public connectivity.
Morpaka now alleges that Lloyds Metals is constructing a private hospital on the disputed land after erecting a security wall across the public road and demolishing a portion of it.
If established, the allegations would raise serious questions about the legality of obstructing public access to infrastructure developed for community use, besides the permissibility of utilising land earmarked for future development.
Municipal Resolution Raises Procedural Questions
The complaint has also questioned the legality and procedural propriety of Ghugus Municipal Council’s Resolution No. 14 dated April 29, 2026, concerning the proposed closure of the public road.
Morpaka contends that the prescribed procedure required a 30-day period for inviting objections from citizens before the road could be closed.
However, she alleges that the resolution was passed without following the mandatory process.
Following the controversy, a public notice was issued on April 30, 2026, inviting objections. Amit Borkar and another resident reportedly submitted written objections against the proposed closure.
Subsequently, the Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 19 on June 29, 2026, proposing a meeting involving elected representatives, Shantinagar residents and company officials, followed by a final decision through a special general body meeting.
According to Morpaka, no final decision has yet been taken through the proposed process.
Construction despite pending decision: The Crucial Question
The central question now confronting the municipal administration is how construction activity allegedly involving the disputed land and public road proceeded despite objections being filed and the final decision reportedly remaining pending.
Morpaka has demanded an investigation into whether the hospital construction commenced in accordance with applicable land-use regulations, municipal permissions and the prescribed procedure for closure of public roads.
She has also called for an impartial inquiry into the role of the Congress-led Municipal Council administration, alleging procedural irregularities in handling the matter.
Three-Point Demand for Accountability
In her complaint, Morpaka has demanded:
- A comprehensive investigation into the alleged encroachment and appropriate legal action against Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd.
- Immediate restoration of the Shantinagar public road to its original condition, along with an inquiry into its alleged demolition and obstruction.
- Restoration of the land reserved for future development to its original status and verification of the legality of its utilisation for hospital construction.
She has additionally demanded an independent investigation into the Municipal Council administration’s handling of the dispute and the decisions taken concerning the road and land.
Lloyds Metals rejects allegations, cites land records
Meanwhile, Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd, through its representative Prashant Puri, has categorically rejected the allegations as baseless and incorrect.
Puri maintained that the disputed land belongs to the company and asserted that the ownership position would become clear from an examination of the relevant 7/12 land records.
The company has argued that allegations should not be levelled without first verifying the official land ownership documents, maintaining that the revenue records establish its ownership claim.
The company’s response, however, does not by itself resolve the separate questions concerning the public road, the 1996 agreement, the land’s designated use or the municipal procedure followed for its proposed closure.
Shantinagar residents await answers
The controversy has now developed into a broader confrontation over land rights, public infrastructure and civic accountability in Ghugus.
While Lloyds Metals maintains that the land is legally owned by it, Morpaka has challenged the manner in which the property is allegedly being utilised and the public road obstructed.
The municipal administration’s response, the status of the pending objections and the legality of the ongoing construction have consequently emerged as crucial issues.
The larger question remains: Can a public road developed for citizens be blocked, and land allegedly reserved under an agreement involving project-affected families be diverted for a private project without conclusively resolving the objections raised by residents?
Until the Municipal Council clarifies the legal position and addresses the objections, the Shant inagar land dispute is likely to remain a flashpoint for residents demanding protection of their rights and accountability from both the company and the civic administration.
