Viraj Infratech Private LTD. vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner's claim for land allotment were unsustainable. The Court found that the rejection orders were non-speaking, lacked application of mind, and were passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had received an In-Principle Approval and had consented to a specific land area. The respondents' argument that the subsequent order was not challenged was dismissed, as the orders themselves were deemed flawed. The Court quashed the orders rejecting the petitioner's claim. The matter was remanded back to the State Government for reconsideration of the petitioner's case for allotment of 22.740 hectares of land. The State Government was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering the previous approvals and consents. This entire exercise was to be completed within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner, Viraj Infratech Private Ltd., applied for allotment of 24.97 hectares of land in Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, for establishing a coal washery and private railway siding. They submitted an application fee of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- as GST. The petitioner received an In-Principle Approval (IPA) on 25-09-2023. Subsequently, another company, M/s Fuelco Coal (India) Ltd., also applied for land in the same village. The State Government, vide an order dated 08-01-2025, directed proportionate allotment of land to both applicants. The petitioner consented to an allotment of 22.740 hectares. However, the respondents later sought cancellation of the earlier permission, citing technical feasibility issues with railway sidings for proportionate allotment. This led to the cancellation of the initial permission by the State Government on 12-02-2026, and a subsequent rejection order dated 13-02-2026 by the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's claim for land allotment are sustainable in law, considering the petitioner fulfilled all requirements and had received an In-Principle Approval, and whether the rejection orders were passed without due application of mind and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that they fulfilled all eligibility criteria for land allotment and had secured an In-Principle Approval. They contended that Respondent No. 4 lacked railway siding permission, making the petitioner the sole eligible candidate. The petitioner also asserted that the rejection orders were non-speaking, passed without considering relevant rules and circulars, and in violation of natural justice principles as no opportunity of hearing was provided. They highlighted that they had already incurred significant expenses. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents argued that proportionate allotment was not feasible due to technical requirements of the Railway Department concerning railway sidings. They stated that the State Government cancelled the earlier permission, and based on that, they rejected the petitioner's application. The respondents also pointed out that the subsequent order rejecting the petitioner's claim was not specifically challenged in the present petition.