Boulder Stone Mart Private Limited vs Union Of India
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
1 WP-8241-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8241 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010161212026
BOULDER STONE MART PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Shri Shantanu Sharma, Shri Shubham Manchani,
Shri Devendra Kumar Prajapati and Shri Shashank Sahu, Shri Satyam
Shukla, Ms.Rida Ahmad, Shri Luvkush Rathore & Shri Mayank Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Additional Solicitor General, with Shri Suyash
Mohan Guru, Dy.S.G. and Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1&2.
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar and Shri Ayush Agrawal, learned counsels for
Respondent No. 3
Reserved on: 30.9.2026
Pronounced on:16.10.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:-
"A. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2026(Annexure
P/20) issued by the Respondent No. 2..
B. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
2 WP-8241-2026
quash the impugned notice dated 26.02.2026(Annexure
P/33) issued by the Respondent No. 2).
C. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and
direct the Respondent No. 2 to execute the final order
dated 14.02.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 in a time-
bound manner.
D. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to
grant costs of Rs.10,00,000 to the Petitioner for the
hardship faced on account of the illegalities committed
by the Respondent.And/or
E. Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE PETITIONER 'S CASE
P-1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Stone
Mart Private Limited, through its authorised representative, Mr Manjul
Sharma, pursuant to a Board Resolution. The dispute relates to the Gotitoria
(East & West) Coal Mine, situated at Tehsil Gadarwara, District
Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh.
P-2. The mining lease in respect of the said coal mine was granted in
favour of Respondent No.3 in the year 1998, and mining operations
commenced in October, 2004. The petitioner started the coal mining
operations in the year 2004. The allotment of coal blocks was subsequently
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal Sharma
v. Principal Secretary & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 516, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court examined the process adopted by the Central Government for
allocation of coal blocks. The Court held, inter alia, that the allocation
process undertaken through the Screening Committee and the Government
Dispensation Route was not supported by the statutory framework and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
3 WP-8241-2026
suffered from arbitrariness. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed
the allocation of 204 coal mines. The Gotitoria (East & West) Coal Mine,
being one of the coal mines covered by the judgment, also stood affected by
the said decision.
P-3. In compliance with the aforesaid judgments, the Government of
India promulgated the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act,”), which was intended to provide for
allocation of coal mines and vesting of the right, title and interest in the land
and mine infrastructure, together with mining leases, in successful bidders
and allottees, while ensuring continuity of coal mining operations and
optimum utilisation of coal resources in the national interest.
P-4. Section 6 of the Act provides for appointment of a Nominated
Authority by the Central Government. The Nominated Authority is entrusted,
inter alia, with conducting the auction process and allotment, executing
vesting orders and allotment orders in respect of Schedule-I coal mines, and
taking steps for recording and mutation of incorporeal rights, permissions,
approvals, grants and registrations. Section 16 of the Act deals with quantum
of compensation in respect of land and mine infrastructure relating to
Schedule-I coal mines. Under the said provision, compensation for land is to
be determined on the basis of the registered sale deeds, together with simple
interest at the rate prescribed therein, whereas compensation for mine
infrastructure is to be determined with reference to the written-down value
reflected in the statutorily audited balance sheet of the preceding financial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
4 WP-8241-2026
year. Section 27 of the Act provides for adjudication of disputes arising out
of actions of the Central Government, the Nominated Authority, the
Commissioner of Payments or the Designated Custodian, as well as disputes
between a successful bidder/allottee and a prior allottee in relation to matters
connected with the Act. The said provision also provides for the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957, while expressly preserving the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts.
P-5. The Government of India also notified the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 7 of the
Rules prescribes the powers and duties of the Nominated Authority. Under
Rule 7, the Nominated Authority is empowered, inter alia, to call for
information from a prior allottee in relation to a Schedule-I coal mine,
including information concerning coal reserves, production, cost of
production, mine infrastructure and contracts; to execute vesting and
allotment orders; and to inform the concerned Central and State authorities
for recording and mutation of the relevant rights, permissions, approvals,
grants and registrations. Rule 14 provides the manner of determination of the
compensation by the nominated authority and lodging of the registered sale
deed as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act read
with Rule 15 of the Rules provides for the disbursement of the compensation
as per priority.
P-6. The constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Coal Mines
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
5 WP-8241-2026
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015 was under challenge before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, and the same was upheld by the High Court in GVK Power
(Goindwal Sahib) Limited &Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr ., 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 7406.
P-7. Consequently, the Ministry of Coal, Government of India issued
auction documents on 18.06.2020 for Auction of Coal Mines for Sale of
Coal in respect of Gotitoria (East) and Gotitoria (West), Coal Mines, in
accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act,
2015. The Petitioner participated in the said bidding process and was the
successful Bidder. The declaration of successful Bidder was communicated
vide letter dated 28.12.2020 to the petitioner.
P-8. In the aforesaid factual and statutory background, the present
petitioner acquired rights and obligations in the Gotitoria (East & West) Coal
Mine, along with the statutory consequences flowing from the cancellation
of its earlier allocation of respondent no.3 and the subsequent statutory
regime governing coal mine allocation, vesting, and related compensation.
Then, the Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement was executed
on 11.01.2021, under which the condition for “Fixed Amount” was
prescribed under Clause 3.1(d).
P-9. The petitioner has stated that no dispute was raised by
Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, in terms of Section 27 of
the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, against the Final Allocation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
6 WP-8241-2026
Order dated 14.02.2023 passed by Respondent No.2. According to the
petitioner, the said Final Order consequently attained finality and, upon such
finality, the petitioner stood discharged from the obligation contained in the
agreement relating to payment of the fixed amount.
P-10. The petitioner submits that, notwithstanding the Final Order
dated 14.02.2023, the first request for reassessment of compensation was
made by Respondent No.3 more than two years thereafter. Respondent No.2
issued a Provisional Compensation Order-I dated 22.01.2026, nearly three
years thereafter. By the said order, Respondent No.2 purportedly took up for
consideration the request of Respondent No.3 for reconsideration/review of
the Final Order dated 14.02.2023. The said proceedings were stated to have
been initiated vide. communications dated 07.04.2025, 08.05.2025,
11.08.2025, 27.08.2025, 03.10.2025, 17.10.2025 and 19.12.2025 submitted
by Respondent No.3.
P-11. The petitioner thereafter participated through its authorised
representatives in the physical hearing held on 25.02.2026 and demanded
certain documents and also submitted its written objections/submissions. The
petitioner requested Respondent No.2 to first adjudicate the preliminary legal
issues raised by it, including the issue concerning the jurisdiction of
Respondent No.2, by passing a reasoned and speaking order before
proceeding further on the merits. The respective submissions of the parties
were thereafter circulated by Respondent No.2 by email dated 26.02.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
7 WP-8241-2026
P-12. The petitioner states that, notwithstanding the jurisdictional
objection raised by it, Respondent No.2 proceeded with the matter without
first deciding the said preliminary issue because the Final Order dated
14.02.2023 had already attained finality and Respondent No.2 had, therefore,
become functus officio; hence, Respondent No.2 lacks jurisdiction to reopen
or review the concluded proceedings. Aggrieved by the Provisional
Compensation Order-I dated 22.01.2026 and the subsequent Meeting Notice
dated 26.02.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present writ petition, principally raising a challenge to the jurisdiction of
Respondent No.2 to reopen/reconsider the Final Order dated 14.02.2023 and
to continue proceedings pursuant thereto.
SUBMISSIONS of LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS
P-13. Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the Respondent
No. 2 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed at the threshold as
the impugned proceedings were initiated for Respondent No.3 for
reopening/re-determination of the compensation already determined vide
Final Order dated 14.02.2023. It is submitted that it is a settled principle of
administrative law that every adjudicatory or quasi-judicial authority is
required to act within the four corners of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by
the statute. An authority cannot assume a jurisdiction which has not been
vested in it by law. Any order passed or action taken without jurisdiction is
void, non-est and coram non judice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
8 WP-8241-2026
P-14. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 had already
passed the Final Compensation Order dated 14.02.2023 under Section 16 of
the Act. Neither the Act nor the Rules confer upon respondent No.2 any
express or implied power to review, recall, modify or reopen its own final
order. It is argued that the power of review is a creature of statute and cannot
be assumed merely on the ground that the authority subsequently considers
that the earlier determination requires reconsideration. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar v.
State (NCT of Delhi),(2019) 9 SCC 416, State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai
Hind Pvt. Ltd.,2026 SCC OnLine SC 157, wherein it was held that
authorities exercising quasi-judicial and administrative functions and,
therefore, in the absence of a statutory provision conferring power of review,
respondent No.2 could not have assumed such jurisdiction.
P-15. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned exercise
is not merely irregular but goes to the root of jurisdiction. According to him,
once respondent No.2 had passed the Final Order dated 14.02.2023, it had
exhausted the jurisdiction conferred upon it in respect of the determination of
compensation and had become functus officio. The compensation determined
thereunder was released and received by the concerned secured creditor of
respondent No.3. Thus, the statutory proceedings stood concluded, and
respondent No.2 could not subsequently reopen the same in the absence of
an express statutory power. It is further submitted that the objection as to
jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter and is required to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
9 WP-8241-2026
considered as a preliminary issue before the authority proceeds any further.
Reliance was placed on Arun Agarwal v. Nagreeka Exports (P) Ltd., reported
in (2002) 10 SCC 101, wherein the Apex Court held that once respondent
No.2 lacks jurisdiction to review its own final order, no adjudication on the
merits of the proposed re-determination can legally follow.
P-16. It is submitted that Section 16 of the Act provides for
determination of compensation, whereas Section 27 provides the statutory
appellate remedy. If respondent No.3 was aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation determined vide order dated 14.02.2023, it was open to it to
avail the remedy provided under Section 27. Having failed to do so,
respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory scheme by
invoking a purported review jurisdiction before the very authority which had
passed the original order. Learned counsel also argued that the principles of
res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel and acquiescence are also
attracted. Respondent No.3, having accepted the benefit flowing from the
Final Order dated 14.02.2023, cannot now be permitted to challenge the very
determination under which such benefit was received. A party cannot be
permitted to approbate and reprobate.
P-17. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in BLA Industries Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr. ,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1025, on the SLP filed by the respondent
no.3 was delivered on 17.08.2022, whereas the Provisional Order in the
present matter was issued on 07.02.2023 and the Final Order was passed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
10 WP-8241-2026
14.02.2023, nearly six months thereafter. According to learned counsel, the
controversy adjudicated in BLA Industries related to the liability concerning
compensation for coal extracted as an additional levy pursuant to the
directions contained in the relevant judgment and did not confer upon
respondent No.2 any power to review or reopen the Final Order dated
14.02.2023. The said judgment, therefore, cannot furnish a source of
jurisdiction which is otherwise absent under the Act and Rules.
P-18. Shri Sharma, learned counsel, finally concluded his argument
by submitting that permitting such an exercise would have serious
consequences for the statutory scheme. If a compensation order, after having
been finally determined, acted upon and not challenged through the statutory
appellate remedy, can subsequently be reopened by the same authority, no
compensation determination would ever attain finality. It would also expose
auctioned coal mines and consequential third-party rights to continuing
uncertainty and would undermine the commercial and statutory certainty
intended under the 2015 Act. That the impugned proceedings initiated for
review/re-determination of compensation are wholly without jurisdiction,
coram non judice, contrary to the statutory scheme and settled principles of
administrative law, and therefore deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2 be restrained from reopening,
reviewing, recalling or modifying the Final Order dated 14.02.2023 except in
accordance with a jurisdiction expressly conferred by the Act and Rules.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF A.S.G./RESPONDENT NO 1 & 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
11 WP-8241-2026
R-1. Shri Sunil Jain learned ASG raised a preliminary objection as to
the maintainability of the present writ petition by submitting that the writ
petition is misconceived, premature and devoid of merit. It is submitted that
the petitioner has challenged the Provisional Compensation Order dated
22.01.2026 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, despite the
fact that the said order is only a provisional and preliminary step in the
statutory process of determination of compensation and does not constitute a
final adjudication affecting or determining the rights of the parties. It is also
submitted that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Provisional
Compensation Order are still pending and have not culminated in any final
order. The petitioner has been granted adequate opportunity to submit its
objections, documents and supporting material before the competent
authority. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court at an interlocutory
stage and seek to interdict proceedings which are yet to attain finality.
R-2. Learned ASG further submitted that the Provisional
Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026 has been issued strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, the
Rules framed thereunder and the applicable provisions of the CMDP
Agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, acting
through respondent No.2. It is submitted that the said order has been issued
with the object of providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to
all concerned parties, including the petitioner and the prior allottee, so as to
facilitate a fair, transparent and lawful determination of compensation in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
12 WP-8241-2026
respect of the Gotitoria (East & West) Coal Mine.
R-3. According to learned ASG, as on date, only a provisional
compensation order has been passed and no final order determining the
compensation has yet been made. The proceedings pursuant to the said
provisional order are continuing, and the petitioner has been afforded
adequate opportunity to place its objections and supporting material on
record. It is therefore submitted that the challenge to a mere
provisional/show-cause proceeding is premature and not maintainable in law.
R-4. Learned ASG, by placing the relevant factual background
before the Court, submitted that on 27.08.1997, the Central Government
accorded approval for grant of mining lease in favour of BLA Industries Pvt.
Ltd./Respondent No.3 under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Pursuant thereto, on 21.05.1998,
the mining lease was granted by the State Government in favour of BLA
Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that coal washery operations were
commenced in September, 2001 and coal mining operations were
subsequently commenced in October, 2004.
R-5. Learned ASG submitted that following the cancellation of the
earlier allocations pursuant to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Ors., reported in (2014) 9
SCC 514. The Central Government initiated steps for fresh allocation of the
cancelled coal mines, inter alia, with a view to ensuring that cancellation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
13 WP-8241-2026
functional mines did not adversely affect vital sectors dependent upon coal. It
is submitted that in this background, the Central Government promulgated
the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 on 21.10.2014,
followed by notification of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014
on 11.12.2014. The said Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the
subsequent Ordinance and ultimately by the Coal Mines (Special Provisions)
Act, 2015. It is further submitted that under the aforesaid statutory
framework, the Gotitoria (East & West) Coal Mine was subsequently
allocated to the petitioner on 28.12.2020, the petitioner having emerged as
the successful bidder in the prescribed process.
R-6. Learned ASG also argued that the present compensation
proceedings in respect of the said coal mine are being undertaken strictly in
accordance with the statutory framework and the applicable contractual and
statutory provisions. The Provisional Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026,
which is under challenge in the present proceedings, does not constitute the
final determination of compensation. It is only a provisional determination
issued in the course of the statutory process so as to place the proposed
determination before the concerned parties and afford them an opportunity to
raise objections and produce relevant material. The extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised
against a provisional order, particularly when the proceedings are still
pending, and no final adverse determination has yet been made. It is
submitted that the respondents are not seeking to deprive the petitioner of
any statutory or legal right; rather, the provisional order has been issued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
14 WP-8241-2026
precisely to ensure that the concerned parties receive an opportunity to
participate in the compensation determination process.
R-7. Learned ASG concluded his submission by submitting that
judicial review at an interlocutory stage is warranted only in exceptional
circumstances, particularly where the proceedings are shown to be wholly
without jurisdiction or where there is a manifest violation of the principles of
natural justice. According to the respondents, neither circumstance exists in
the present case. Respondent No.2 is acting within the statutory framework
and has issued the provisional order for the purpose of completing the
process of determination of compensation after providing an opportunity to
the concerned parties. Interference at this stage would amount to stalling a
statutory process before its culmination and would unnecessarily pre-empt
the final decision of the competent authority. It is therefore prayed that the
writ petition be dismissed at the threshold as being premature and not
maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the pending
proceedings and raise all its objections before the competent authority in
accordance with law. That no interference by this Court is warranted at the
present stage and that the Provisional Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026
and the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto may be
permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3
R-8. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
15 WP-8241-2026
No.3/BLA, submits that the controversy essentially pertains to the
compensation payable in respect of approximately 480.71 acres (194.542
hectares) of land which stood transferred from answering respondent to the
petitioner by operation of law under the provisions of the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid
480.71 acres, approximately 457.22 acres were transferred in November,
2021 and the remaining approximately 21.48 acres were transferred in
January, 2023. According to learned counsel, against the said land, the
petitioner paid only approximately ₹ 14.22 crores, which works out to
approximately ₹ 2.96 lakhs per acre, and the said amount was substantially
below the fair market value of the land. Learned counsel submitted that
Respondent No.3 is entitled to receive the fair market value of the land in
accordance with the judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India
& Anr., in W.P.(C) No.973 of 2015. It is submitted that the amount
determined in the earlier proceedings was paid to the secured creditor of
respondent no. 3 and they did not receive the compensation towards the land
in their own hands, on account of the financial and economic circumstances
prevailing at the relevant time.
R-9. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the amount
determined earlier was paid to the secured creditor cannot be construed as an
unconditional acceptance by BLA of the valuation or as a waiver of its legal
right to seek fair compensation for the land. It is submitted that BLA, by its
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
16 WP-8241-2026
communication dated 08.02.2023, had specifically requested that the amount
determined under the then prevailing order be paid to its secured creditor, as
BLA was under severe financial pressure from its lenders and was facing
economic duress. According to learned counsel, the said communication
clearly demonstrates that the payment was accepted without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of BLA. Learned counsel further submitted that the
subsequent conduct of the petitioner itself demonstrates the inadequacy of
the valuation earlier adopted. It is pointed out that in the year 2024, the
petitioner valued approximately 457 acres of the said land at more than ₹ 100
crores and raised financial facilities by creating a mortgage over the very
same property, and there is no denial of this fact in the rejoinder. It is
submitted that by an Equitable Mortgage Deed dated 07.10.2024, executed in
favour of Union Bank of India, the petitioner itself declared the market value
of the property comprising approximately 457.22 acres at ₹ 101,69,12,400/-.
According to learned counsel, the said valuation works out to approximately
₹ 22.24 lakhs per acre, which is several times higher than the amount of
approximately ₹ 2.96 lakhs per acre which had earlier been paid towards the
land.
R-10. According to learned counsel, the substantial difference
between the amount earlier determined and the subsequent valuation placed
by the petitioner itself demonstrates that the earlier compensation did not
represent the fair market value of the land. It is therefore submitted that the
Provisional Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026 has rightly taken into
consideration the subsequent material and has allowed the concerned parties
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
17 WP-8241-2026
to submit their objections before arriving at a final determination. Learned
counsel argued that the statutory authority is under an obligation to
determine compensation fairly and in accordance with the applicable
statutory framework and the law laid down by the competent Courts.
According to learned counsel, the judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd. & Anr. v.
Union of India & Anr. recognises the requirement of considering tangible
evidence relating to fair market value, and the subsequent valuation of the
very same property by the petitioner constitutes relevant material which
cannot be ignored.
R-11. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts
having direct bearing upon the controversy involved in the present writ
petition. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately failed to disclose
the communication dated 08.02.2023 addressed by BLA, whereby BLA had
requested that the amount determined at the relevant time be paid to its
secured creditor while expressly reserving its rights and contentions.
According to learned counsel, the said communication assumes significance
because the petitioner has sought to portray before this Court that BLA had
accepted the earlier compensation without objection and had thereby
acquiesced in the valuation. It is submitted that such assertion is contrary to
the contemporaneous record.
R-12. Learned counsel further emphasised that the petitioner has also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
18 WP-8241-2026
suppressed the Equitable Mortgage Deed dated 07.10.2024 executed in
favour of Union Bank of India. It is submitted that the said document records
the market value of the property at ₹ 101,69,12,400/- for approximately
185.034 hectares, equivalent to approximately 457.22 acres, comprising land
situated in villages Chargaon Khurd, Manegaon, Mohpani and Rechhai.It is
pointed out that the said Equitable Mortgage Deed forms part of the
documents considered in connection with the Provisional Compensation
Order dated 22.01.2026 and was therefore within the knowledge of the
petitioner. According to learned counsel, despite the same being a material
document directly relevant to the valuation dispute, the petitioner has not
disclosed the document before this Court. Learned counsel further argued
that the writ petition is conspicuously silent on the actual quantum of
compensation and the valuation of the land. According to respondent No.3,
the petitioner has instead sought to assail the proceedings primarily on
technical and jurisdictional grounds, without disclosing any substantive
objection to the valuation reflected in the Provisional Compensation Order
dated 22.01.2026.
R-13. It is submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly afforded an
opportunity by respondent No.2 to submit its objections regarding the
valuation and quantum of compensation, but the petitioner chose not to place
any substantive objection or supporting material on record. According to
learned counsel, such conduct assumes significance because the petitioner
itself had subsequently valued the same property at more than ₹ 100 crores
for the purpose of securing financial accommodation from its bank.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
19 WP-8241-2026
According to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot now challenge the
valuation adopted in the provisional order while simultaneously failing to
place before the competent authority any material demonstrating that the
valuation is erroneous or excessive. It is argued that the petitioner has not
disputed the authenticity of the valuation contained in the Equitable
Mortgage Deed nor has it offered any explanation as to why the same
property was valued at more than ₹ 100 crores before its own financial
institution.
R-14. Learned counsel further argued that the Provisional
Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026 does not finally determine the
compensation payable by the petitioner , rather, the order merely takes into
consideration the material available on record, including the valuation
reflected in the Equitable Mortgage Deed, and calls upon the concerned
parties to submit their objections before a final determination is made.
Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner cannot claim to have suffered
any final or irreversible prejudice at this stage. The petitioner continues to
have an opportunity to place its objections, evidence and valuation material
before the competent authority, which is required to consider the same in
accordance with law before passing the final order.
R-15. It is further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the
petitioner merely by permitting the statutory proceedings to continue. On the
contrary, BLA would suffer grave and irreparable prejudice if it is denied an
opportunity to establish the fair market value of the land which stood
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
20 WP-8241-2026
transferred from it by operation of law. Learned counsel concluded his
submissions that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting
interference with the Provisional Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026 at
this stage. The petitioner has an adequate opportunity to place its objections
and material before the competent authority, and the matter ought to be
permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. The
writ petition is premature, misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The
Provisional Compensation Order dated 22.01.2026 does not warrant
interference at this stage, and the competent authority may be permitted to
complete the proceedings after considering the objections and material
placed by all concerned parties and thereafter pass an appropriate final order
in accordance with law.
Appreciation & Conclusions
C-1. In this case, the coal mining lease in question is situated in
Tahsil, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, named as Gotitoria (East-West)
Coal Mine. Initially, the same was granted to the respondent No.3. The
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal
Secretary (supra), declared that the entire allocation of the coal block as per
recommendation made by the Screening Committee suffers from vice and
arbitrariness and was illegal. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 24.9.2014,
the Supreme Court quashed all the allotments of coal mines, including the
present one. Thereafter, the Government of India promulgated the Coal
Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014. Later on, the Coal Mines
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
21 WP-8241-2026
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015 was enacted. Thereafter, the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Rules of 2014 were also framed. Again, the validity of
section 16 of the aforesaid Act came to be challenged, and the same was
upheld by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of GVK Power (Goindwal
Sahib) Limited & another Vs. Union of India and another, 2017 SCC Online
Del 7406.
C-2. The respondent No.1 issued a Tender Notice. The petitioner
participated and was declared successful. Thereafter, an agreement was
executed, in which an amount was fixed and prescribed under clause 3.1(d)
and payable to the respondent No.3 as compensation. The respondent No.2
obtained the valuation report from the authorised valuer for the land. The
valuer carried out the calculation as per the provisions of section 16 of the
Act, which was Rs.12,51,97,539/- and the fair market value as on 18.11.2021
was Rs.14,22,38,494/-. Accordingly, under section 16 of the Act read with
Rule 14, the fair market price was determined and assessed at
Rs.1,70,40,955/-. Vide order dated 07.2.2023, the respondent No.2 passed
the provisional order determining the compensation payable to the
respondent No.2, as on the date of vesting order, i.e. 18.11.2021. The
petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount, and the final compensation order
dated 14.2.2023 was passed. Admittedly, at that time the respondent No.3
accepted the compensation without any protest. According to the petitioner,
during the entire process the respondent No.3 did not raise any objection or
dispute with respect to determination of compensation by the respondent
No.2 and accepted the amount without any protest. The respondent No. 3,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
22 WP-8241-2026
under section 27 of the Act, had a remedy to raise a dispute by challenging
the order dated 14.2.2023. Even though no appeal was preferred before the
Tribunal under section 27 of the Act, the order dated 14.2.2023 had attained
finality.
C-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argued that there
is no power of review under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Despite
that, the respondent No.2 entertained the claim submitted by the respondent
No.3 for enhancement of compensation from Rs.14,22,38,494/- to
Rs.1,06,91,66,597/- and issued a direction to deposit Rs.92,69,28,103/-
within 15 days vide provisional order passed on 22.1.2026. The petitioner
submitted an objection and filed a petition before this Court.
C-4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel, has argued that quasi-judicial
authority does not possess any power to review unless it is expressly
conferred by the Statute. The respondent No. 2, having passed the final order
of compensation under section 16, has become functus officio. Having
accepted the benefit of compensation under the order, now respondent No.3
cannot turn around to challenge the same under the principle of approbate
and reprobate. So far as the question of maintainability of writ petition is
concerned, Shri Sharma, learned counsel submitted that when the notice is
issued with premeditation and without jurisdiction, then writ petition would
be maintainable.
C-5. In response to the aforesaid argument, Shri Jain, Assistant
Solicitor General, has submitted that the order dated 14.2.2023 was a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
23 WP-8241-2026
compensation order, but there are provisions in the Act, Rules and
Agreement for reassessment. The petition is premature as the petitioner has
already filed the reply to the show-cause notice and appeared before the
Authority number of times. In fact, the Authority has not exercised the
power under review but is reassessing the just and fair compensation. E-mails
contained in Annexures-P/26 to P/29 show that the petitioner has been
actively participating and, all of a sudden, filed the writ petition invoking the
writ jurisdiction.
C-6. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Central Government to
appoint an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary as the nominated
authority, who shall act for the purpose of the Act and the Rules. Rule 7
prescribes the powers and duties of the nominated authority. Sub-rule (3) of
said Rule gives power to the nominated authority to exercise consequential
or incidental functions of the nominated authority. It is also submitted that by
virtue of Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the nominated authority is empowered to
exercise all such powers as are consequential or incidental to its statutory
functions. The power to withdraw, modify or revise its own order falls within
the ambit of such incidental and such consequential powers. Clause 3.3.2(h)
of the Tender Document, as well as clause 3.1 of CMDPA dated 11.1.2021,
gives power to the nominated authority to enhance the fixed amount, and it is
the contractual obligation of the successful bidder to pay such enhanced
amount.
C-7. In the case of Badam Coal Mines, the revised compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
24 WP-8241-2026
was passed by the nominated authority, which was upheld by the Tribunal
constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, Ranchi, in CBC Case No.19/2023. The Delhi High Court in WP
No.18422/2025 (Shree Cement Limited) has declined to grant interim relief.
In the said writ petition, the nominated authority has submitted a reply
relying on sub-rule (7) of Rule 14 and specifically sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 for
revising or withdrawing the final compensation. However, the said order has
been set aside only on the ground of opportunity of hearing, and the matter
was remanded back to the authority to decide afresh. Even if the respondent
No.3 (BLA) did not approach the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act, the
same does not in any manner restrict the power of the nominated authority to
review its own order. As on today, only a provisional order dated 22.1.2026
has been passed with reasons, and the petitioner has an opportunity to contest
before the nominated authority.
C-8. The respondent No.3 was granted a mining lease in 1998 for the
Gotitoria (East & West) coal mines under the prevailing MMDR Act, and the
rules made thereunder. In the year 2012, certain Public Interest Litigations
were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the coal block allocations
through the Screening Committee. The mining lease of respondent No.3 was
wrongly included in the list, despite the fact that the lease was not granted
through the Screening Committee route. Consequently, vide judgment dated
29.4.2014, the Supreme Court cancelled all the coal block allotments,
including the present one, which burdened respondent No.3 with an
additional levy exceeding Rs.80 crores.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
25 WP-8241-2026
C-9. The respondent No.3 approached the Supreme Court by way of
WP(C) No. 63/2015 challenging its wrong inclusion. Finally, in the case of
B.L.A. Industries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1025 vide judgment dated 17.8.2022, the Supreme
Court allowed the writ petition, categorically holding that the Union of India
acted in a callous, careless and casual manner by including the present lease
allotted to the respondent No.3. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged
that the Respondent No. 3 had suffered a loss due to the unlawful action of
the Government of India and, accordingly, imposed nominal costs. Under the
economic duress faced by the Respondent No.3 and pressure from the
lenders under the SARFAESI Act, investigations by the CBI, Enforcement
Directorate, and contempt proceedings, the Respondent No.3 initially
accepted the provisional order of compensation dated 07.2.2023. At that
time, only four days' time was granted for filing the objection. In order to
save the land, the respondent No.3 accepted the amount. It is further
submitted that in the present case, it is not a review by the nominated
authority exercising the review jurisdiction, which has its own limitation, but
it is a case of reassessment based on the fresh documents. The respondent
No.3 was entitled to compensation as per the fair market value of the 480.71
acres of freehold land. But, it was paid only Rs.14.22 crores in the year 2023,
roughly at the rate of Rs.2.96 per acre, which appears to be grossly
inadequate and substantially low in comparison to the prevailing market
value. Due to the severe financial distress and to save the lands from
attachment by the nationalised banks, the respondent No.3 had accepted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
26 WP-8241-2026
said compensation. The concluding paras of the above judgement are
reproduced below:-
"21. It is therefore held that allocation of the coal block
made in form of the petitioner did not run foul of the
procedure prescribed in the MMDR Act and the MC Rules.
The petitioner was not allocated the coal block either
through the Screening Committee Route or the Central
Government Dispensation Route, which fact was not
pointed out by the respondent No. 1 - UOI at the
appropriate stage, that led to painting the petitioner with the
same brush as the other allottee listed in Annexures - 1 and
2. Having held that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of
the flawed process, the consequences spelt out in the
Second Judgment would not apply to it and therefore, it
cannot be called upon to pay penalty as compensatory
payment, as demanded by the respondent No. 1 - UOI.
22. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the
respondent No. 1 - UOI is not entitled to claim payment of
an additional levy for the coal extracted by the petitioner
from the subject mine. Any such demand raised by the
respondent No. 1 - UOI is hereby quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms.
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 7 of 2016 is dismissed as
meritless.
23. Before parting with this matter, we are constrained to
make certain observations regarding the conduct of the
respondent no. 1 - UOI. Here is a case where a private party
followed all the rules and the law, as applicable, before
investing large sums of money to undertake business. In
fact, it appears from the facts of the case that it was the
respondent no. 1 - UOI that did not follow the letter of the
law. But ultimately, it was the private party that had to
suffer the consequences of the careless and callous
approach of the respondent no. 1 - UOI. To compound the
petitioner's woes, the respondent no. 1 - UOI filed an
affidavit before this Court including the petitioner in the
list of errant mine owners, based on its own unlawful
conduct. It did not undertake the necessary due diligence to
determine as to whether the petitioner had been allotted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
27 WP-8241-2026
mine through the lawful procedure. As a result of this
callous, careless and casual approach of the respondent no.
1 - UOI, the present petitioner had to suffer loss and
ignominy.
24. Therefore, litigation costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh) shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 -
UOI to the petitioner within four weeks."
C-10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.2
completed the compensation assessment proceedings and passed the
provisional order dated 14.2.2023. According to the Respondent No. 3, the
said amount was accepted as they wanted to save other lands from
SARFAESI proceedings. But the said amount is not adequate, looking at the
prevailing market values of the land. The respondent No.3 was paid only at
the rate of Rs.2.96 lacs per acre for the land area of approximately 480.71
acres. It is also submitted that immediately after the passing of the Vesting
Order, in the year 2024, the petitioner mortgaged 457 acres of land (out of
the aforesaid 480.71 acres) to Union Bank of India, valuing the said 457acres
of land at over Rs. 100 crores, i.e. an increment of over 7 times, valuing the
land at Rs. 22.24 Lacs per acre. As per the Equitable Mortgage Deed dated
07.10.2024 created by the petitioner in favour of Union Bank of India, the
market value of property is Rs. 101,69,12,400/- (Rs.One hundred one crores
sixty nine lacs twelve thousand and four hundred only) and where the
property of villages Chargaon Khurd (41.44Hectares), Manegaon (18.952
Hectares), Mohpani (41.933Hectares) and Rechhai (82.819 Hectares)
totalling to a total of 185.034 Hectares (457.22 Acres) (This fact has been
taken from the impugned order). This fact has not been controverted by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
28 WP-8241-2026
petitioner. That shows the high value of the land, and the nominated
authority did not assess the fair market value at the time of passing of the
provisional order on 07.02.2023. As per the version of the Respondent No. 3,
although 4 days were granted to file a response, they requested the
Respondent No.2 to pass the final order even before then so that the payment
can be made to the State Bank of India under One Time Settlement. It cannot
be free consent and acceptance to the earlier order dated 14.02.2023, as the
Respondent No. 3 was wholly under extreme economic duress and financial
distress.
C-11. The Respondent No. 1 has also not disputed that between
2023-2025, Respondent No. 3 was under investigation by CBI and ED
regarding purported allocation of Gotitoria Coal Mine. Further, several
hearings took place before the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act between 2023 and 2025. During the said period, the
Directors of Respondent No.3 were also involved in the proceedings which
were initiated by the Enforcement Directorate to defend the company as well
as themselves. It was only in February 2025 that CBI filed a closure report in
BLA’s case; hence, there cannot be any delay on the part of the Respondent
No.3 in making the representation dated 7.4.2025 for seeking fair
compensation.
C-12. Further, the Coal Mine Development and Production
Agreement (“CMDPA”), which has been signed between Boulder Stone
Mart Pvt Ltd (“BSMPL”) and the Union of India on 11.01.2021 also has a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
29 WP-8241-2026
similar provision for upward revision of Fixed Amount, which
includes compensation for land. The relevant clauses of the CMDPA are
quoted hereunder for reference:-
"G: Pursuant to a tender process conducted
in accordance with the Act, the Rules, the
Tender Document, dated June 18, 2020 (as
amended) and receipt of a direction from the
Central Government under Rule 10(10) of the
Rules, the Successful Bidder has become
entitled to enter into an agreement with the
Nominated Authority pursuant to Rule 13(5)
of the Rules with respect to allocation of the
Coal Mine to the Successful Bidder for
sale of coal.”
"H. Accordingly, the Nominated Authority
and the Successful Bidder are entering into
this Agreement in accordance with Rule
13(5) of the Rules, with respect to matter
related to allocation of the Coal Mine,
including without limitation development
of the Coal Mine and production and sale of
coal from the Coal Mine.”
“3.1(d) ... It is clarified that any
upward revision in the Fixed Amount on
a subsequent date by the Government or
the Nominated Authority consequent to
any process or on the orders of any
competent court of law, shall also be payable
by the Successful Bidder on receipt of any
notice to that effect from the
Nominated Authority. ...”
"28.7.2. No failure or delay by
the Nominated Authority in exercising
any right or remedy provided by
Applicable Law under or pursuant to this
Agreement shall impair such right or remedy
or Operate or be construed as a waiver
or variation of it or preclude its exercise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
30 WP-8241-2026
at any subsequent time and no single
or partial exercise of any such right or
remedy shall preclude any other or further
exercise of it or the exercise of any other
right or remedy. The rights and remedies of
the Nominated Authority under or pursuant
to this Agreement are cumulative may
be exercised as often as it considers
appropriate and are in addition to its
rights and remedies under Applicable Law."
(Emphasis supplied)
C-13. It is clear from the conjoint reading of clause 3.3.2 ( h) (ii) of
the tender document and Clauses 3.1(d) and 28.7.2 of the CDMPA that the
Respondent No.2 has full power and authority to revise the “fixed amount”;
there is no time limit prescribed for the exercise of such power by the
Respondent No.2 and that Respondent No.2 can exercise such power “as
often as it considers appropriate”. Section 16 of the Act lays down that
compensation for the land shall be in accordance with “rules” as may be
prescribed. The Respondent No. 1 has enacted the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Rules, 2014 to carry out the provisions of the principal
Act. Rule 10 of the Rules deals with the auction of the Mines. Rule 10 (3)
(0) provides that the tender document may prescribe terms
and conditions associated with the auction, fixed price, illegibility conditions,
etc. The above-mentioned clause of the tender document, agreement and
other documents wherein the respondent No. 2 has put a condition that the
fixed price is tentative and is subject to be revised is a condition imposed
under Rule 10 (3) (c) and has statutory force.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
31 WP-8241-2026
C-14. Hence, having been accepted the allocation of Gotitoria Coal
Mine, the petitioner is bound by the terms of the Tender, CMDPA, as well as
to comply with its statutory and/or contractual obligations, and cannot now
question the power of Respondent No.2 to enable its unjust enrichment.
Terms and conditions of CMDPA also form part of the Mining Lease Deed
executed between BSMPL and Government of Madhya Pradesh on
05.08.2022. In Part IX of the said Mining Lease Deed, para 10 reads as
follows:-
"10. The lessee, M/s. Boulder Stone Mart
Private Limited shall comply with all the
covenants, terms and conditions prescribed
by the Central Government in terms of the
provisions of the CoalMines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 and rules made
thereunder, and the said covenants, terms and
conditions prescribed by the Central
Government shall be deemed to form part of
this Mining Lease.”
C-15. While upholding the validity of Section 16(1) of the Act, in
the case of GVK (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi
observed as under:-
"31. When all the rights, title and interest in
the land in question are to be transferred from
the prior allottee to the successful bidder, it
cannot be expected of the legislature (or the
Government) to make a provision designed to
enrich the successful bidder at the cost of the
prior allottee. Such enrichment would be
unjust and is to be avoided as then, it would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
32 WP-8241-2026
amount to being discriminatory and arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. It must be remembered that the
mining lease had been annulled by the
Supreme Court and the mines were to be
reallocated in a fair, just and transparent
manner. This certainly did not mean that the
land was to be confiscated or some penalty
qua the land was to be imposed. In fact, even
Section 16 speaks of “Compensation”, which
would obviously have to be fair, just and
reasonable. Otherwise, it would not amount
to “compensation” at all. Unfairness and
arbitrariness can be avoided if a just, fair and
reasonable amount by way of compensation
is awarded for the land in question. This may
be and, usually is, the market price or the
market value of the said land. It may well be
that the quantum of compensation for the
land based on the registered sale deeds along
with 12% simple interest per annum is a just
and fair compensation as it is equal to the
market value or is very close to it. But, this
may not necessarily be the case. By fixing a
rigid formula of the value of the land as per
the historical value given in the sale deeds
together with 12% simple interest may
operate unfairly against the prior allottee and
to the benefit of the Successful Bidder."
Apart from the above, injustice meted out to the Respondent No. 3 in
cancelling its coal mines allotment has also already been examined and taken
care of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BLA Industries Private Limited
(supra).
C-16. As on today, the proceedings are still pending before the
nominated authority/ Respondent No.2 and the final order has not been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
33 WP-8241-2026
passed, as the provisional order has been passed on the basis of the
documents already available with the nominated authority. From the
proceedings undertaken so far, it is evidently clear that adequate opportunity
has been granted, and in future continues to be available, to the Petitioner to
raise all contentions, including those about jurisdiction as well as merits,
before the Nominated Authority. As on today the petitioner has only
submitted a preliminary objection before the authority challenging the
authority of Respondent No.2. The petitioner has yet to file its detailed
objection on merit to justify the correct valuation of the subject land in the
order dated 14.02.2023.
C-17. Therefore, it is not a case where the action of respondent No.2
prima facie suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction in order to re-determine
the compensation. Hence, interference by this High Court at this preliminary
stage of issuance of show-cause notice is not warranted. In case any adverse
order is passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to a remedy
as available to it under the law. The petitioner has not rushed to this Court
immediately with respect to challenge the provisional order issued by the
respondent No.2. dated 22.1.2026 as the petitioner has appeared on
03.2.2026, demanded certain documents on 04.2.2026, 05.2.2026 and
06.2.2026. The petitioner submitted preliminary submissions on 25.2.2026,
and a meeting was held on 26.2.2026.
C-18. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances in
totality, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, let the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84444
34 WP-8241-2026
respondent No.2 pass a final order in accordance with law, and thereafter
either party may, if so advised, challenge the same in accordance with law.
C-19. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:03:12