Tribal Minister, 20-Crore Plot, And A "General" Entry Row In Chhattisgarh

A narrow approach road in Kachna. A proposed 150-foot arterial road in Saddu. About 1.33 acres at one location. A 23,327-square-foot plot at another, nearly a kilometre away. And amid this land trail, an entry in the records that has triggered another, potentially more contentious question why does the category "General" figure in documents connected to a company linked to the family of one of Chhattisgarh's prominent tribal ministers?

At the centre of the controversy is Radhika Palace Private Limited, a company in which Shanti Kashyap, wife of Chhattisgarh Forest Minister Kedar Kashyap, is a director. Kashyap is a prominent BJP leader from the Scheduled Tribe community and represents the ST-reserved Narayanpur Assembly constituency.

The controversy surrounding the Raipur Development Authority's Labhandi-Kachna-Saddu Town Development Scheme began with questions over the location and potential value of a plot proposed for Radhika Palace Private Limited.

It has now widened to include questions over the category recorded in the land documents. Congress leader and Raipur-based ENT specialist Dr Rakesh Gupta has alleged that the company is being proposed a substantially better-located final plot under the town development scheme than the land it originally held.

The RDA has strongly denied any favouritism. The BJP has separately rejected the controversy over the "General" entry, arguing that the land is in the name of a company and a company has no caste. Kedar Kashyap himself has not responded to the questions.

The document showing 'general' category status against Chhattisgarh Minister Kedar Kashyap's wife

But the documents and the competing explanations leave several questions that go beyond the political exchange.

1.33 Acres In Kachna, 23,327 Sq Ft In Saddu

The land trail begins in Kachna's Nalapara area. According to Dr Gupta, Radhika Palace Private Limited owns approximately 1.33 acres there. The land, he says, is approached through a narrow road passing through a residential settlement. Under the RDA's town development scheme, the company's land is shown as Plot No. 71 and is stated to fall in an area earmarked for public amenities.

What the company is proposed to receive after reconstitution is where the controversy begins. Instead of a final plot at or close to the company's original Kachna property, Plot No. 25 in Saddu has been proposed, according to the allegations and documents cited by Dr Gupta.

The plot measures approximately 2,168 square metres or 23,327 square feet. Published reports examining the proposal independently record the same plot number, area and the allegation that it is roughly a kilometre from the original property. But the controversy is not simply about distance. It is about where the new plot is located. Plot No. 25 is near Saddu Chowk and the proposed MR-43, a 45-metre or approximately 150-foot-wide road.

And that leads to the first big question.

From A Narrow Road To A 150-Foot Road Why?

If the original property had restricted access through a narrow road, on what basis was its reconstituted plot proposed close to one of the widest roads envisaged under the scheme? The town development plan itself provides for roads of different widths, including 12-metre roads.

Dr Gupta's question is why wasn't the company given a final plot along a 12-metre road or closer to its existing land? Why Plot No. 25, around a kilometre away and close to the proposed 45-metre MR-43? He has cited Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, while questioning the reconstitution process and has written to the Chief Secretary seeking an inquiry. His contention is that the principles governing reconstitution require scrutiny of how far a final plot can be shifted from the original holding and on what basis its location is determined. The Congress leader has sought an investigation into not merely this plot, but the broader reconstitution and allotment exercise.

RDA says the latter suggestion is simply wrong. RDA Vice-Chairman JP Sharma has rejected the Congress allegations as false and baseless and denied that political influence was used to benefit the company associated with the minister's wife. The RDA's central defence is that Radhika Palace was not singled out.

According to the authority, its policy provides for landowners with larger holdings to receive plots connected to the 45-metre road. It says 17 landowners were given plots adjoining the main road under the same rules. The RDA has also said that land belonging to people associated with the Congress has been connected to the same 45-metre road.

The authority has also defended the land arithmetic. According to the RDA, allotting approximately 23,000 square feet against an original holding of 1.33 acres was done in accordance with the policy and formula applicable to the scheme. It says the process is not yet final either. Claims and objections have been invited, and objections received will be examined by the appropriate committee before the process moves forward.

Then Came The 'General' Entry

While the dispute over Plot No. 25 was unfolding, another issue emerged from the land records. Kedar Kashyap belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. Yet, according to the documents being questioned, the category "General" appears in connection with the landholding. That has prompted an obvious question who exactly has been classified as "General" in the document, and why? The issue assumes significance because Chhattisgarh has specific statutory safeguards governing the transfer of tribal land in certain circumstances. The Congress argues that legal protections governing the transfer of Scheduled Tribe land cannot disappear merely because a different category is entered in a record.

But the BJP says the allegation fundamentally misunderstands what the document represents. At a press conference called after the controversy erupted, BJP leader Shiv Narayan Pandey rejected suggestions that Kedar Kashyap or his family had somehow changed their caste for a land transaction. His argument was categorical, "The land is in the name of the company. A company has no caste."