Orissa Alloy Steel Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors - Land Compensation Dispute

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 11, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Orissa Alloy Steel Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2026

$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19034/2025
Date of decision: 17.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
ORISSA ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr Advocate with Mr.Gaurav Juneja,
Ms. Swastika Chakravarti, Ms. Mimansha Durgapal, Mr.Aditya
Rathi, Advocates.)
versus

                      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                     .....Respondents

                      (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
                                          JUDGEMENT 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:26:24
KUMAR KAURAV
(b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the
Respondent No. 2, Nominated Authority, has, in 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").

1.   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.
   

2.   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.
   

3.   After the allocations of the Chakla Coal Mine cancelled by the Signature Not Verified                                                             Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA                                                              Signed
   

   Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
   18:26:24
   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.

4.    Thereafter, in terms of the [Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183758087/),
            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.
   

5.    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.
   

6.    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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166220/) and the decision of this Court in the case 1 (2014) 9 SCC 516.
   

2 AIR 1961 SC 532.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:26:24
KUMAR KAURAV of Electrosteel Castings Limited vs. Union of India and others.3 He also
submits that today, what is under challenge is the perversity of the Impugned
Order.

1.   Having given a thoughtful consideration to the argument made by Mr.
            Kohli, the Court is not persuaded to entertain the instant writ petition. The
            location of the respondent-authority or the consequential fact of the order
            impugned having been passed within the jurisdiction of this Court ought not
            to be the sole determinative factor in deciding whether to entertain the
            present petition.4 In the instant case, the Impugned Order was also passed
            for the purposes of compensating the prior allottee of the Coal Mine,
            situated in the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the essential, material and integral
            part of the cause of action, has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
   

2.  This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,5
            took note of the decisions in [Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24638441/) and Urban
            Development Corp.,6 Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
            Education,7 Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v.
            Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,8 Michael Builders and [Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,9](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23421436/) which 3 (2023) 5 High Court Cases (Del) 680.
   

4 The jurisdictional paragraph in the petition reads as follows:

"70. This Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition as since a part of the
cause of action for filing the instant Writ Petition has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court as the Final Compensation Order dated 22 February 2022 has been passed in New Delhi.
The Respondents No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court."
5 2026:DHC:1605.

6 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.

7 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.

8 2024:DHC:6903-DB 9 2024:DHC:7146.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:26:24
KUMAR KAURAV declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent,
does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction
to entertain a writ petition.

1. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:

"36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an
authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-
India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take
place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition
that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises
from events or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the
ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and
takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the
jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this
Court."
12. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority, being situated within the jurisdiction of this
Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:

"37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and
bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority
happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in
this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital,
but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more
importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court.
The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is
merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it
has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the
foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.

1. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to "dominant facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non- Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:26:24 KUMAR KAURAV integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a "dominant fact" or a "material, essential and integral" fact? The answer must be in the negative."
2. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. At para. 42 this Court observed:

"42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in
determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an
authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet,
which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where
territorial jurisdiction would lie."
14. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action
which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason
to entertain the instant petition.

1. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,10 has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine 10 (2004) 6 SCC 254.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:26:24
KUMAR KAURAV of forum conveniens. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads
as under:

"Forum conveniens

1. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 :

[AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold
Storage (P) Ltd.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/958555/) 1997 [CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of
India ([1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]"
16. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however,
granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court
to agitate the instant lis, if so advised.

1. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2026
Nc Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:26:24
KUMAR KAURAV