Dismissed¶76

M/S.Sterlite Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Feb 2026WP(C)/15495/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sterlite Iron & Steel; IDCO; forfeiture of administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies; refund; Letter No.14493 dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure-11); withdrawal of land acquisition proceeding under Section 48, Land Acquisition Act 1894; Circular No.32463/R dated 14.06.1999 (Annexure-13) schedule of refund; 66th meeting of Board of Directors; nine villages of Keonjhar district steel plant; MoU 15.10.2004; W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015; High Court of Orissa; dismissed on 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding was done only at the instance of the Petitioner: IDCO submitted the withdrawal proposal in response to the Petitioner's request of 06.06.2012 (Annexure-9), so the Court recorded that the withdrawal was initiated at the Petitioner's instance. ¶73

M/S.Sterlite Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the forfeiture by IDCO (impugned letter, Annexure-11) of the amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies is valid, and whether the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the forfeited amount. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

¶73

Ratio / Principle

No private person or industrialist can make a requisition for acquisition of land; it has to be done by the requisitioning authority, which in this case is IDCO.

¶69

Key takeaways

Neither the decision taken in the 66th meeting of the Board of Directors of IDCO nor the validity of the Circular at Annexure-13 was challenged by the Petitioner; the Petitioner only contended they were not applicable to it, and counsel was not in a position to establish that.ratio¶74
The Circular under Annexure-13 is squarely applicable to the Petitioner, as the proposal for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Petitioner only.ratio¶75
There is no infirmity in the impugned letter under Annexure-11.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.15495 of 2015 (K.R. Mohapatra and Sanjay Kumar Mishra JJ., 'By the Bench', heard and disposed of on 09.02.2026): M/s Sterlite Iron & Steel Company and another sought setting aside of IDCO's Letter No.14493 dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure-11) forfeiting administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies deposited for acquisition of land in nine villages of Keonjhar district for its steel plant (MoU dated 15.10.2004 for a 5 MTPA plant), and refund of the forfeited amount. Held: the withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding — requested by the Petitioner vide letter dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure-9) under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 — was initiated only at the instance of the Petitioner, since no private person can requisition acquisition and IDCO acted in response to the Petitioner's proposal; neither the decision taken in the 66th meeting of IDCO's Board of Directors nor the validity of the 1999 refund Circular (Annexure-13, stage-wise percentage refund, 'Nil' after passing of award) was challenged by the Petitioner; the Circular is squarely applicable to the Petitioner; and there is no infirmity in the impugned letter. Establishment cost of Rs.1,48,80,297 (including law charges and notification publication charges) stood deducted from the deposits. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶3

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

¶5

M/s Sterlite Iron & Steel Company

¶6

and another …… Petitioners

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

State of Odisha and others .…… Opp. Parties

¶9

Advocates appeared:

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Senior Advocate

¶11

being assisted by Mr. Deepankar Varadwaj,

¶12

Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1,3, 4 and 5) Miss Arusmita Acharya, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2-IDCO)

¶13

CORAM :

¶14

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶15

-----------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 09.02.2026

¶16

----------------------------------------------

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

By the Bench;

¶19

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶20

2. Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, prays for a direction to

¶21

set aside the letter No.14493 dated 2^nd August, 2012 (Annexure-

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶23

Page 1 of 9

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶26

issued by the Land Officer, Odisha Infrastructure Development Corporation (for brevity, ‘IDCO’), Bhubaneswar forfeiting the amount deposited by the Petitioner towards administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies as per the decision taken in the 66^th meeting dated 4^th October, 2005 (Annexure-12) of the Board of Directors and the Circular No.32463/R dated 14^th June, 1999 (Annexure-13) of the Government of Odisha issued by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management.

¶27

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that on 15^th October, 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Petitioner and the State Government to set up a 5 million tons per annum (MTPA) steel plant in Odisha. Accordingly, on the requisition of IDCO land acquisition proceeding was initiated covering nine villages of Keonjhar district identified for establishment of steel plant proposed by the Petitioner and IDCO directed the Petitioner, vide its letter No.1182 dated 20^th January, 2007 (Annexure-4) to deposit certain amount on different heads. Since the project proponent-the Petitioner had already deposited Rs.8.00 crores with IDCO, it was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6,81,49,857/- with IDCO. Accordingly, the project proponent, namely, the Petitioner deposited the same with IDCO. For acquisition of land, Gram Sabha was held, but ultimately, due to stiff opposition of the local inhabitants, the possession of the acquired land could not be delivered to the project proponent.

¶28

Page 2 of 9

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶32

However, by then, the award in the land acquisition proceeding had already been passed. As it was not possible on the part of IDCO to deliver possession of the required land, the Petitioner, vide its letter dated 6^th June, 2012 (Annexure-9) requested as under:-

¶33

“In view of the above, we request you to take appropriate steps, to withdraw land acquisition proceeding in respect of entire project site under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act 1.894 . We also request IDCO to allocate a minimum of 800 to 1000 acres of land, in the form of alternate, site, from an industrial area for 1.5 MTPA steel plant, for going ahead with the implementation of the project in a phase-wise manner, the capacity of which could be expanded to 5 MTPA steel plant at the later date.”

¶34

(emphasis supplied)

¶35

Thus, the request of the Petitioner was processed and ultimately vide impugned letter under Annexure-11, the proposal submitted by the Petitioner was accepted by IDCO subject to forfeiture of administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies as per the decision taken in the 66^th meeting of the Board of Directors (Annexure-12) and Circular of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department (Annexure-13) referred to above supra.

¶36

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate drew attention of this Court to the Circular of Revenue and Excise Department No. 32463 dated 14^th June, 1999 (Annexure-13), relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder.

¶37

“It is sometimes observed that the requisitioning authorities file application for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings and consequently claim refund

¶38

Page 3 of 9

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶40

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶41

of the sum deposited by them towards establishment cost, law charges and printing charges etc. In such cases, no clear-cut policy guidelines had been, hitherto, enunciated by the State Govt. for deciding upon the entitlement of the requisitioning authorities for refund. In this connection, a draft policy was circulated by the Revenue & Excise Department vide letter No. 27885 dated 4.6.98. On the basis of the suggestions received from some of the Collectors and the R.D.Cs it has been decided that the entitlement of the requisitioning authorities for refund of the amount deposited under Executive Instruction 9 towards establishment will be determined as per the schedule contained in the Annexure. However, in case any legal expenses have already been incurred in connection with any land acquisition proceedings, the cost thereof should also be deducted from the amount refundable to the requisitioning authorities .”

¶42

“ Annexure ”

¶43

SCHEDULE OF REFUND

¶44

Sl. No.	Stage of receipt of withdrawal proposal	Percentum of refund
1.	L.A. proposal received but not processed at all	100%
2.	After submission of draft notification U/S 41 to RDC /Govt.	75%
3.	After issue notification U/S 4 (1)	60%
4.	After survey collection of sale data, valuation statement and framing of estimate	50%
5.	After issue of Declaration U/S 6 (1)	40%
6.	After issue of Orders U/s 7	30%
7.	After completion of enquiring U/S g but before passing of award	20%
8.	After passing of award	Nil

¶45

Page 4 of 9

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶47

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶48

4.1. He further submits that the project proponent wanted contiguous land of 800 to 1000 acre of land to set up a 1.5 MTPA steel plan, although the original proposal was for setting up a 5 MTPA steel plant. IDCO could not deliver possession of the same to the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner (project proponent) is no way responsible for the withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding. Thus, the impugned letter under Annexure-11 forfeiting the administrative charges as well as land acquisition establishment contingencies is not justified and is liable to be set aside. He, therefore, prays for a direction to IDCO to refund the rest amount forfeited by it.

¶49

5. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC referring to the counter affidavit as well as the affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 (Collector, Keonjhar and Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar) in compliance of order dated 22^nd June, 2018 of this Court, submits that in view of Circular under Annexure-13 issued by the then Revenue and Excise Department, 10% of the establishment cost was rightly forfeited after passing of the award, as at the instance of the Petitioner, withdrawal notification was issued. Thus, establishment cost of Rs.1,48,80,297/inclusive of cost towards cost of establishment, law charges and notification publication charges were deducted from the deposits made by the Petitioner. It is his submission that the withdrawal process of land acquisition was initiated at the instance of the Petitioner, vide letter under Annexure-9. Thus, the claim of the

¶50

Page 5 of 9

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶54

Petitioner for refund of the forfeited amount is not sustainable. He further submits that by the time the Petitioner requested for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding, award in the land acquisition case had already been passed and the land oustees were paid their compensation. Thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to any refund, as claimed.

¶55

6. Miss Acharya, learned counsel appearing for IDCO, referring to the counter affidavit, reiterates the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned ASC and submits that it is at the instance of the Petitioner, process of withdrawal of the land acquisition notification was initiated. Thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to refund of the administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies. As such, there is no error in issuing impugned letter under Annexure-11. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶56

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the materials available on record, as referred to by learned counsel for the parties. The land acquisition proceeding in question was initiated on the basis of the requisition made by the IDCOI to provide land to the Petitioner, the project proponent to establish a steel plant. Land acquisition proceeding in respect of nine villages was initiated and notification was accordingly made. Due to stiff opposition of the local public, IDCO could not deliver possession of the land to the Petitioner. It is also apparent from the record that the Petitioner was requiring minimum of 800 acres of land to establish a steel plant of 1.5 MTPA capacity,

¶57

Page 6 of 9

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶61

although the MoU was signed for 5 MTPA steel plant. It is also not in dispute that IDCO was not in a position to deliver possession of the land required/acquired covering nine villages as per Annexure-4, i.e., Narsinghpur, Gopinathpur, Dhatika, Singraisuan, Silisuan, Tikarpada, Mahadeijoda, Kadagarh and Danardanpur of Keonjhar district. It is also clear from counter affidavit filed by IDCO that due to stiff opposition of the villagers of some of the villages, possession of the land could not be delivered. Although notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued in the year 2008-09, but land acquisition proceeding in respect of village Kadagarh and Tikarpada lapsed. Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed in respect of Singraisuan and Gopinathpur village. In respect of village Kadagarh and Tikarpada, the proposal for declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act has been submitted to the Government on 22^nd January, 2010 for necessary sanction and declaration, pending valuation of trees and structure. The land acquisition proceeding in respect of rest four villages, i.e., Mahadeijoda, Narsinghpur, Silisuan and Danardanpur lapsed due to non-deposit of the land acquisition cost by the Petitioner through requisitioning authority, namely, IDCO, Bhubaneswar. It is further apparent from the record that the Petitioner, vide its letter dated 6^th June, 2012 (Annexure-9) expressing its difficulties to set up the steel plant, requested IDCO, namely, the requisitioning authority to take appropriate steps to withdraw the

¶62

Page 7 of 9

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶66

land acquisition proceeding in respect of the entire project area under Section 48 of the Act.

¶67

8. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, however, referring to Circular at Annexure-13, submits that unless the land acquisition proceeding is withdrawn, the request of the Petitioner to get contiguous land of 800 acres in other area could not have been processed. Thus, the communication under Annexure-9 was made to IDCO. In turn, IDCO could have denied to accept the proposal for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding, but instead of doing so, it submitted the proposal to the Government for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding. The Circular under Annexure-13 is only applicable to requisitioning authority and not to the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner is not at fault; it is at the fault of IDCO, the requisitioning authority, delivery of possession of land could not be made to the Petitioner for which, the project could not start.

¶68

9. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate, as the requisitioning authority, namely, IDCO submitted the proposal on the basis of the request of the Petitioner dated 6^th June, 2012 at Annexure-9 for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding. Thus, it is only at the instance of the Petitioner, the proceeding for withdrawal of the land acquisition was initiated. Further, no private person or industrialist can make a requisition for acquisition of land. It has to be done by the requisitioning authority which in the instant case is IDCO. When IDCO submitted the proposal for

¶69

Page 8 of 9

¶70

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31

¶73

withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding responding to the proposal submitted by the Petitioner, we have no doubt to record that withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding is done only at the instance of the Petitioner.

¶74

10. Further, neither the decision taken in 66^th meeting of the Board of Directors of IDCO nor the validity of the Circular at Annexure-13 was challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition . Petitioner only contends that the same are not applicable to it. But Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate is not in a position to establish the same.

¶75

11. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that Circular under Annexure-13 is squarely applicable to the Petitioner, as the proposal for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Petitioner only. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned letter under Annexure-11.

¶76

12. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 9^th February, 2026/s.s.satapathy

¶78

Page 9 of 9

¶79

W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter No.14493 dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure-11) issued by the Land Officer, IDCO, Bhubaneswar, accepting the Petitioner's withdrawal proposal subject to forfeiture of administrative charges and land acquisition establishment contingencies per the 66th Board of Directors meeting decision (Annexure-12) and the Government Circular (Annexure-13).¶35
Land Officer, Odisha Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO), Bhubaneswar · 02.08.2012
Prior proceeding
Memorandum of Understanding signed on 15.10.2004 between the Petitioner and the State Government to set up a 5 MTPA steel plant in Odisha.¶27
Prior proceeding
On the requisition of IDCO, land acquisition proceeding initiated covering nine villages of Keonjhar district identified for the Petitioner's steel plant.¶27
Prior proceeding
IDCO directed the Petitioner (letter No.1182 dated 20.01.2007, Annexure-4) to deposit amounts on different heads; having already deposited Rs.8.00 crores, the Petitioner deposited the balance of Rs.6,81,49,857/- with IDCO.¶27
Prior proceeding
Gram Sabha held, but due to stiff opposition of local inhabitants possession of the acquired land could not be delivered to the project proponent.¶27
Prior proceeding
By the time of the withdrawal request, the award in the land acquisition proceeding had already been passed.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's letter dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure-9) requested withdrawal of the land acquisition proceeding for the entire project site under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and allocation of 800-1000 acres of alternate site for a 1.5 MTPA steel plant.¶33
Prior proceeding
Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 (Collector, Keonjhar and Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar) filed affidavits in compliance of this Court's order dated 22.06.2018.¶49
Prior proceeding
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in 2008-09; land acquisition proceedings in respect of villages Kadagarh and Tikarpada lapsed.¶61
Prior proceeding
Award under Section 11 of the Act passed in respect of Singraisuan and Gopinathpur villages.¶61
Prior proceeding
In respect of villages Kadagarh and Tikarpada, the proposal for declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was submitted to the Government on 22.01.2010, pending valuation of trees and structures.¶61
Prior proceeding
Land acquisition proceedings in respect of the remaining four villages (Mahadeijoda, Narsinghpur, Silisuan and Danardanpur) lapsed due to non-deposit of the land acquisition cost by the Petitioner through the requisitioning authority, IDCO, Bhubaneswar.¶61

M/S.Sterlite Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sterlite Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Odisha Power Employees Union, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Mihir Ranjan Pattjoshi Vs State of Odisha

Puspa Rana Vs Government of Odisha, Khurda

Jayan Raj Madhi Vs State of Odisha

Lalmohan Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rpg Life Sciences Limited, Jajpur Vs State of Odisha