Jindal Steel Limited (Formerly Jindal Steel and Power Limited) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Jindal Steel Limited (Formerly Jindal Steel And Power Limited) Has Its Official Corporate Registered Office At O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar - 125005, Haryana, India Through Its Hemant Kumar Verma, S/o B.K. Verma Aged 61 Years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) General Manager (Liaison And Public Relation), Jindal Steel Ltd. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Applicant

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶14

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶15

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Tahsildar Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶16

5 - Nandkishore S/o Shankarlal Aged About 52 Years R/o H. No. 64 Bangladipara, Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶17

6 - Hemlata D/o Phoolchand Aged About 50 Years House No. 40/340, Kotra Road, Soniya Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶18

2

¶19

7 - Gulab Ram Sidar S/o Jawahar Sidar Aged About 46 Years R/o Uparpara Ward No. 10 Kalahandi Konthardi, Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶20

8 - Fagulal Chouhan S/o Shankarlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Saraipali, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶21

9 - Tirath Raj Sidar S/o Kumar Singh Sidar Aged About 62 Years Saraipali, Raigarh, Ward No. 43, Kirodimalnagar, Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶24

For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. For Resp. Nos.1 to 4/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Resp. Nos.5 to 9 : Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate, on advance copy.

¶25

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

16/09/2026

¶28

This miscellaneous Civil Case has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.1035/2026.

¶29

Vide the aforesaid order, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the observations made in paragraphs 5 to 8, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶30

“5. Land is the main source of livelihood of the villagers. It is surprising that respondent No.5, who is an industrialist, has allegedly been using the land of the villagers/petitioners without paying compensation, providing alternative land or ensuring rehabilitation. It is also surprising that despite seeking report from respondent Nos.4 & 5 by the Collector, Raigarh, no concrete action has been taken by him to redress the grievance of the petitioners. Property right is a

¶31

3

¶32

constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person can be deprived from his property without following due process of law. Therefore, the Collector, Raigarh ought to have taken lawful action to redress the grievance of the petitioners. 6. In view of the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage directing the Collector, Raigarh/respondent No.2 to decide the application dated 16.5.2024 (Annexure-P/2) filed by the petitioner and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. If it is found that the land of the petitioners have been utilized by respondent No.5, that too since 2005, then appropriate compensation/rehabilitation and other benefits along with interest be provided after adopting the due procedure of law, within 90 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this Order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s) the instant petition is hereby disposed of.

¶34

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”

¶35

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, in the garb of the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities have directed the applicant to submit a proposal for acquisition of the land for alleged installation of an underground pipeline and electric line under the said land, so that the amount of compensation may be determined. He further submits that the said underground pipeline and electric line were installed around the year 1997 and, therefore, the alleged claim has been raised by the respondents belatedly. Despite the aforesaid fact, the private respondents are still using the land and are also in possession thereof. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed without serving notice upon the

¶36

4

¶37

applicant and without providing an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order may be recalled.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.5 to 9 submits that though the private respondents are in possession of the said land and are also using the same, but after inquiry, the concerned Halka Patwari has reported that the underground pipeline, electric line and road have been installed by the applicant -Jindal Steel Limited. Therefore, a proposal has been sought vide Annexure A-4 for acquisition of the land so that compensation may be paid to the private respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that, in compliance with the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court, an inquiry was conducted and a report was sought from the concerned Halka Patwari, wherein it has been reported that the subject land of the private respondents has been used by the applicant -Jindal Steel Limited for installation of an electric line, underground pipeline and road. Therefore, vide communication (Annexure A-4), the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, has sought a proposal for acquisition of the land so that compensation may be paid to the private respondents/affected persons. Hence, he submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶41

The substantive portion of the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2026 in WPC No.1035/2026 has been reproduced in the paragraph No.2. Perusal of the said order shows that this Court has

¶42

5

¶43

not commented upon the merits of the case; rather, a direction was issued to the Collector, Raigarh (respondent No.2 herein) to decide the application dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure-P/2 therein) filed by the petitioners therein (private respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein) and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. It was further directed that, if it was found that the land of the petitioners had been utilized by respondent No.5 therein (applicant herein), that too since 2005, then appropriate compensation/rehabilitation and other benefits along with interest be provided after following the due procedure of law.

¶44

Perusal of Annexure A-4 shows that, in compliance with the aforesaid order, an inquiry was conducted through the concerned Halka Patwari, wherein it has been reported that Khasra Nos.69/1, 69/2, 69/3, 72/1 and 72/2/ क have been utilized by the applicant herein for installation of an electric line, underground pipeline and road. Therefore, a proposal for acquisition of the land has been sought so that compensation may be paid to the affected persons.

¶45

The order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court does not contain any finding on the merits of the case; rather, it only contains a direction to the concerned authority. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant MCC. However, if the applicant has any grievance against the communication dated 17.06.2026 (Annexure A-4) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh to the applicant herein and the Chief General Manager, District Commerce and Industrial Center, Raigarh, then the applicant may challenge the inquiry report on the basis of which the said communication (Annexure A-4) has been issued, as well as the

¶46

6

¶47

entitlement of private respondent Nos.5 to 9 to seek compensation, in accordance with law.

¶48

In view of the above, the present MCC is dismissed at the motion stage .

¶49

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Rukhsar

Jindal Steel Limited (Formerly Jindal Steel and Power Limited) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jindal Steel Limited (Formerly Jindal Steel and Power Limited) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases