Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47090 (CHH)

Vandana Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

WPC/2724/2016 · 2025-12-11

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:60549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2724 of 2016 Vandana Soni W/o Lal Bahadur Soni, Aged About 47 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Thana Balco Nagar, Balco, Tahsil And Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Industries And Commerce Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director, State Investment Promotion Board, Renuka Dwar, Near Old Mantralaya, Shastri Chouk, Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Korba, Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation, Korba Through Commissioner, Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhattisgarh State Pollution Control Board, Through Secretary, Danganiya, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bharat Aluninum Company Limited Balco Thorugh Chief Executive Officer, Balco Nagar, Thana Balco Tehsil And Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Union Of India Thorugh Secretary, Ministry of Enviornment And Forest, Paryavaran Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Aniruddh Panda, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate on 2 behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 12/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to the respondents to pay the just, proper and adequate compensation to the petitioner as well as grant her the benefit of rehabilitation of her lands situated at Shanti nagar in pursuance of the order dated 28.11.2013 passed on the basis of undertaking given by the respondents in WP (PIL) no. 27/2013. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the pollution report of shanty nagar, Korba 10.3. Any other relief with cost of petition which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that BALCO has constructed a 1200 MW thermal power plant at Balco Nagar, Korba. He would further submit that cooling tower is established in the mid of Shanti Nagar and the people of Shanti Nagar suffered noise pollution. A WP(PIL) no. 27/2013 was filed, wherein an undertaking was given by BALCO to acquire the entire land situated at Shanti Nagar. He would contend that in the first list of 50 affected persons, name of the petitioner was not included, thereafter, a revised survey was conducted and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of affected persons. He would also submit that till date compensation has neither been assessed nor granted to the petitioner, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for assessment of compensation and its payment strictly in accordance with law. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of BALCO would submit that since name of the petitioner appears in the list of affected persons, appropriate steps will be taken by the authorities of BALCO for assessment & payment of compensation to the petitioner at the earliest. 4. Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate would submit that a revised survey was conducted by the State and name of the petitioner is included in the list prepared by the concerned authorities. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Upadhyay, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 6 within a period of 15 days from today and in turn, the respondent No.6 is directed to decide it within a further period of 90 days from the date of representation. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM