[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S Sterlite Iron & Steel Company vs State Of Odisha And Others ....... Opp. ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
M/s Sterlite Iron & Steel Company
and another ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
being assisted by Mr. Deepankar Varadwaj,
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)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 09.02.2026
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, prays for a direction to
set aside the letter No.14493 dated 2nd August, 2012 (Annexure-
W.P.(C) No. 15495 OF 2015
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
11) 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 66th meeting dated
4th October, 2005 (Annexure-12) of the Board of Directors and
the Circular No.32463/R dated 14th June, 1999 (Annexure-13)
of the Government of Odisha issued by the Department of
Revenue and Disaster Management.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that on 15th 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 20th 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.
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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 6th June, 2012 (Annexure-9) requested as
under:-
"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."
(emphasis supplied)
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 66th meeting of the
Board of Directors (Annexure-12) and Circular of the Revenue
and Disaster Management Department (Annexure-13) referred to
above supra.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate drew attention of
this Court to the Circular of Revenue and Excise Department No.
32463 dated 14th June, 1999 (Annexure-13), relevant portion of
which is reproduced hereunder.
"It is sometimes observed that the requisitioning
authorities file application for withdrawal of the land
acquisition proceedings and consequently claim refund
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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."
"Annexure"
SCHEDULE OF REFUND
Sl. Stage of receipt of withdrawal proposal Percentum of
refund
No.
1. L.A. proposal received but not processed at all 100%
2. After submission of draft notification U/S 41 75%
to RDC /Govt.
3. After issue notification U/S 4 (1) 60%
4. After survey collection of sale data, 50%
valuation statement and framing of estimate
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 20%
before passing of award
8. After passing of award Nil
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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.
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 22nd 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
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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.
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.
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,
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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 22nd 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 6th 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
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
land acquisition proceeding in respect of the entire project area
under Section 48 of the Act.
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.
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 6th 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
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 13:26:31
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.
10. Further, neither the decision taken in 66th 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.
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.
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.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 9th February, 2026/s.s.satapathy
