ORISSA ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

(Through: Mr Abhishek Gupta CGSC Mr Kumar Kartikeya , Mr Chanakya Kene and Mr Dhananjay Singh, Advocates for R-1, 2 and 5. Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Mr. Sanidhya Gupta, Advocates for R-3. Ms. Chanan Parwani, Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocates for R-4.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J U D G E M E N T PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

#1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that in respect of the Chakla Coal Block, the Petitioner is entitled to the compensation in respect of land parcels totalling 1230.58 acres, title for which was held by Essar Power (Jharkhand) Limited and which has since been acquired by the Petitioner through the liquidation process (“Land Parcels”); Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:26:24 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV (b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Respondent No. 2, Nominated Authority, has, the Final Compensation Order dated 22 February 2022 for Coal Mine, wrongly granted compensation in favour of Respondent No. 4, Essar Power Limited in respect of Land Parcels; (c) Consequently, pass an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the Final Compensation Order to the extent that compensation for Land Parcels has been granted in favour of Respondent No. 4, Essar Power Limited and direct Respondent No. 2 to grant the compensation in respect of these Land Parcels in favour of the Petitioner; (d) Pass such order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

#2. The petitioner through the present petition seeks, inter alia, a declaration that it is entitled to the compensation in respect of the land parcels admeasuring 1230.58 acres in Distrcts Garwaha, Koderma, Bokaro and Palamu, Jharkhand (“Land Parcels”), which has been disbursed in favour of Essar Power Limited (“Essar Power”).

#3. The facts appear to be that the Land Parcels had been acquired by one Essar Power Jharkhand Limited (“Essar Jharkhand”) for the Chakla Coal Block (“Chakla Coal Mine”), which was originally allocated in 2007 in favour of Essar Power. However, it was, thereafter, decided that the coal extracted from the Chakla Coal Mine would be used to meet the captive requirements of the proposed plant of Essar Jharkhand at Tori.

#4. Thereafter, Essar Jharkhand is stated to have undertaken various steps for obtaining a mining lease for the Chakla Coal Mine, including but not limited to, acquiring title for the Land Parcels.

#5. After the allocations of the Chakla Coal Mine cancelled by the Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:26:24 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary,1 the said coal mine was auctioned in favour of Hindalco Industries Limited (“Hindalco”) and a Vesting Order dated 3 March 2021, whereby, inter alia, the Land Parcels came to be vested in favour of Hindalco.

#6. Thereafter, in terms of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, the Nominated Authority passed the Final Compensation Order dated

22.02.2022 (“Impugned Order”), whereby compensation to the prior allottee for the land and mine infrastructure, in the instant case for the Land Parcels, was finally determined, and was directed to be paid to Essar Power.

#7. The petitioner claims that, thereafter, Essar Jharkhand went into liquidation, and on a going concern basis, by means of a Sale Certificate dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner acquired the Land Parcels. It is, thus, submitted by the petitioner, that by purchasing the Land Parcels, it stepped into the shoes of Essar Jharkhand, and was entitled to the compensation granted by the Nominated Authority under the Impugned Order.

#8. Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the entire case, what is disputed is that the manner in which the nominated authority has adjudicated the rights and claims of the petitioner. According to Mr. Kohli, the location of the land has no bearing for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant case. He also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khajoor Singh v. Union of India & Anr.,2 and the decision of this Court in the case