BJP leader alleges Lloyds Metals seized Rs 7 crore land, shut public road in Ghugghus for private hospital

A dispute has erupted over land in Ghugghus in Chandrapur district. It is alleged that Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited occupied land worth about Rs 7 crore belonging to residents of Shantinagar and closed a public road to build a private hospital. Questions have been raised over ownership of the land, residents' right of passage, the municipal council's approvals and the accountability of the local administration.

BJP group leader Meena Chand Morpaka has submitted a written complaint to the chief officer of the Ghugghus municipal council. She has sought legal action against the company, restoration of the road and an impartial inquiry into the role of the council administration. The allegations relate to a 30-year-old land agreement and a road built with funds from the PMKKKY scheme.

According to Morpaka, an agreement was reached between Lloyds Metals and the residents of Shantinagar on May 14, 1996. Under it, the company was to buy 1.38 hectares of land and distribute it among families affected by the project. The company later obtained approval for a layout of 62 plots. However, it is alleged that about 2,600 square metres (27,975 square feet) of land was set apart and reserved for future development. Morpaka says this land, kept for the benefit of Shantinagar residents, has now become the centre of the disputed private hospital project.

The most serious allegation concerns the road linking Chandrapur Road to Shantinagar, which is said to have passed through the disputed land. According to the complaint, the then gram panchayat passed a resolution in 2019 approving concreting of this road, and it was built under the PMKKKY scheme. Morpaka alleges that the company erected a protective wall across the road, demolished part of it and is building the private hospital on the same disputed land.

The complaint also questions the validity and procedure of the municipal council's resolution no. 14 of April 29, 2026, linked to a proposal to close the road. Morpaka says the rules required 30 days to be given for citizens to file objections before closing a road, but the resolution was passed without this process.

After the dispute arose, a public notice inviting objections was issued on April 30, 2026. Amit Borkar and another resident are reported to have filed written objections to the proposed closure. The council then passed resolution no. 19 on June 29, 2026. It provides for a meeting of elected representatives, Shantinagar residents and company officials, followed by a final decision at a special general body meeting. According to Morpaka, no final decision has yet emerged from this process.

This raises the question of how construction on the disputed land and road continued despite objections being filed and a final decision pending. Morpaka has sought an inquiry into whether the hospital work began in line with land-use rules, the council's permission and the prescribed procedure for closing a road. She has also demanded an impartial inquiry into the role of the Congress-led council administration, saying there were procedural lapses in handling the matter.

Morpaka has made three demands in her complaint. First, a full inquiry into the alleged occupation and appropriate legal action against Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited. Second, immediate restoration of the Shantinagar public road and an inquiry into its demolition and obstruction. Third, return of the land reserved for future development to its original condition and an examination of the legality of its use for the hospital. She has also sought an independent inquiry into the council administration over its decisions on the road and the land.

The company, through its representative Prashant Puri, has rejected the allegations outright. Puri called them baseless and false. He said the disputed land belongs to the company and that the 7/12 records would settle the question of ownership. The company argues that allegations should not be made without examining government land documents, and that revenue records confirm its claim to ownership. The company's reply does not separately address the questions on the public road, the 1996 agreement, the designated use of the land and the council's procedure for closing the road. The council's response, the status of the pending objections and the legality of the ongoing construction are now key issues.