Nominated Authority may reassess compensation under contractual revision clauses absent patent jurisdictional defect.

The petitioner was the successful bidder for the Gotitoria (East & West) Coal Mine and entered into a Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement (CMDPA) with the Union of India.

Respondent No. 2 determined compensation for land transferred from the prior allottee, respondent No. 3, and passed a final compensation order on 14 February 2023.

Respondent No. 3 later sought enhanced compensation.

On 22 January 2026, respondent No. 2 issued a provisional compensation order proposing an increased amount and invited objections.

The petitioner challenged that order and subsequent proceedings under Article 226, arguing that respondent No. 2 lacked power to reopen its final order.

The High Court noted that proceedings remained pending and that the petitioner had an opportunity to object on jurisdiction and merits.

1. Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 against a provisional compensation order while the statutory proceedings remain pending

2. Whether respondent No. 2’s proposed reassessment of compensation was, at this stage, patently without jurisdiction because it had already passed a final compensation order

Section 16 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 provides for determination of compensation for land and mine infrastructure; Section 27 provides a forum for adjudicating disputes arising under the Act.

Rule 7(3) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014 permits the Nominated Authority to perform consequential or incidental functions, while Rule 14 concerns determination of compensation.

The Court also considered the auction and contractual terms, including Rule 10(3)(c), tender clause 3.3.2(h)(ii), and CMDPA clauses 3.1(d) and 28.7.2, which contemplate upward revision of the fixed amount.

The Court relied on the principle that writ intervention at an interlocutory stage is generally unwarranted where proceedings are pending and an adequate opportunity to respond remains, unless a patent lack of jurisdiction or comparable exceptional ground is shown.

It considered GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasised that compensation should be fair and reasonable, and B.L.A. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, concerning the prior allottee’s circumstances and the Government’s treatment of its mine.

The Court treated the challenged order as provisional, not a final determination, and noted that the petitioner could still make submissions on both jurisdiction and valuation before respondent No. 2.

It considered the statutory and contractual provisions relied on by the respondents as capable of supporting a reassessment of the fixed amount, and therefore found no prima facie patent absence of jurisdiction requiring immediate intervention.

The Court also noted that respondent No. 3 had raised material concerning the land’s later valuation, while the petitioner had not yet filed a detailed merits objection before the authority.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to determine the ultimate validity of any revised compensation and allowed the statutory proceedings to continue.

It directed respondent No. 2 to pass a final order in accordance with law and left either party at liberty to challenge that order through an available legal remedy.