1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (PIL) No.101 of 2016

Dhananjay Pathak S/o Shri Upendra Nath Pathak, aged about

39 years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Chowk, Kaserpara, Thana

Chakradhar Nagar, Post and Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of

Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda, District Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)

4. Tehsildar, Tamnar, Chhattisgarh

5. M/s HINDALCO Industries Limited, Through: Its Managing Direc-

tor, Village Milupara, Thana and Tahsil Temnar, District Raigarh

(Chhattisgarh)

6. Jaiswal Neco Industries Limited, Through : Its Managing Director

Siltara, Growth Centre, Siltara, Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Mr.Mahendra Dubey, Advocate

For Res.No.1 to 4

: Mr.Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General,

on advance copy

Hon’ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, Acting Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

02/03/2017

1.

Sole petitioner-Dhananjay Pathak has filed this writ petition (PIL)

against the official respondents as well as private respondents-

M/s HINDALCO Industries Limited and Jaiswal Neco Industries

Limited claiming the following reliefs:-

2

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

to call for the entire record of case relating to subject

matter of the instant writ petition.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the State of Chhattisgarh or other agency to

hold and complete a high level enquiry into the matter

within a given period and enquiry may kindly be

monitored by this Hon'ble Court so that the every

constitutional, fundamental and legal rights of affected

villagers and land owners may be protected and they

may be given the proper and suitable compensation

and other benefits as per the terms and conditions of

the Rehabilitation Policy 2007 and 2013 and

compliance of applicable law be done in respect of

each and every affected land owners and formers of

the area.

10.3 That any other writ/direction/order which may

deem proper and fit under the facts and

circumstances of the case also be issued by the

Hon'ble Court.”

2.

The focused perusal of the relifs sought would show that main

relief claimed in the shape of 10.2 of the writ petition is extremely

vague.

3.

The petitioner is simply seeking a direction to hold an enquiry to

protect the constitutional, fundamental and legal rights of the

affected villagers and land owners and for payment of proper and

suitable compensation in terms and conditions of the

Rehabilitation Policy 2007 and 2013 without specifying the details

of land-owners who have not been given the just and proper

compensation.

3

4.

The State Government has granted lease to respondent No.6 on

13.4.2006 for carrying out the mining activities and Memorandum

of Understanding has been signed by respondent No.1 and

respondent No.6 on 17.3.2011 in terms of Rehabilitation Policy

2007 and surface right was granted by order dated 19.4.2012 by

respondent No.2 and it has been stated that on the basis of order

of the Supreme Court, all the rights and liabilities arising out of the

lease deed and surface right in favour of respondent No.6 has

been transferred to respondent No.5.

5.

Reference may be made herein to the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the matter of D.N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary,

Government of Karnataka and others ¹, wherein Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:-

“36. A Considerable amount has been said about public

interest litigation in R & M Trust² and it is not necessary

for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in

is