{"id":138919,"date":"2010-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-17T08:11:45","modified_gmt":"2016-08-17T02:41:45","slug":"electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010<\/div>\n
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                     WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009\n                            With\n                     WP(C) No. 2515 of 2009\n\n         In WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009\n\n         1.    Rama Shankar Singh @ R.S. Singh.\n         2.    Durga Prasad Banerjee @ D.P. Banerjee.\n         3.    Durgesh Kumar Srivastava @ D.K. Srivastava.\n         4.    Soumya Jyoti Sarkar @ S.J. Sarkar.\n         5.    Pradip Narayan Pathak @ Paramanand Pathak.........Petitioners\n\n                                         Versus\n\n         1.    The State of Jharkhand.\n         2.    The Collector cum Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest\n               Division, Bokaro.\n         3.    The Range Forest Officer, Chas, Bokaro.\n         4.    The Forestor, Chas, Bokaro.               ........Respondents\n\n         In WP(C) No. 2515 of 2009\n\n         1.    Electrosteel Integrated Ltd. , through its Managing Director,\n               Kolkata.\n         2.    Shrish Kumar.                               ............Petitioners\n\n                                         Versus\n\n         1.    State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Project Building,\n               Ranchi.\n         2.    Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Jharkhand,\n               Ranchi.\n         3.    Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.\n         4.    The Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro,\n               Jharkhand.\n         5.    The Range Officer of Forest, Bhagabandh, Chas, Bokaro.\n         6.    The Forester, Bhagabandh, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand.\n                                                         ........Respondents\n\n         Coram       : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA\n\n         For the Petitioners : Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate in both cases.\n         For the State        : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, S.C. 1\n                                   ----------\n         C.A.V. On 18.2.2010                         Delivered on 29\/3\/2010\n\n21\/29\/3\/2010<\/pre>\n
         In WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009, petitioners being the
\n         employees of Electro Steel Integrated Ltd. ( the Company for short)
\n         have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against
\n         them under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (BPLE Act for short)
\n         being B.P.L.E. Case No. 2 to 11 of 2009-2010, pending in the court of
\n         Collector cum Divisional Forest Officer,        Bokaro     Forest Division,
\n         including the orders passed therein restraining them and the
\n                                        -2-<\/span>
\nCompany from carrying on non-forestry work in the                        forest area in
\nPlot Nos. 1159, 1120 and 1389.\n<\/p>\n
               WP(C) No. 2515 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner
\ncompany for restraining the respondents from interfering with the
\npossession and enjoyment of the lands in question, purchased by the
\ncompany, in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
2.             As common questions are involved in both the writ
\npetitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
3.             Submissions on behalf of the petitioners are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
         (i)   That the         said   proceedings      under        BPLE   Act,   being
\nsummary in nature, the disputed questions of right, title, interest and
\npossession, cannot be decided, specially when the appeal arising out
\nof suit, preferred by the Forest Department, involving similar
\nquestions, is pending.\n<\/p>\n
               That a suit being Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 was instituted
\nin the Court of Sub Judge-II, Bokaro by the plaintiffs-Haripad Mahto,
\nKailashpati Mehta, Sumitra Bala Devi, sons and wife of late
\nRaghunath Mehta of village Bhagaband against the Chief Secretary,
\nGovernment of Bihar; the Secretary, Forest Department, Government
\nof Bihar; the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro; the Divisional Forest
\nOfficer, Dhanbad; and the Ranger, Chas Range Forest Department,
\nChas, Bokaro; for declaration of permanent occupancy raiyati right
\nand confirmation of possession etc. of the plaintiffs in the schedule-A
\nand B lands. Schedule-A consisted of 8.50 acres of land in plot no.
\n1159, 3.05 acres in plot no. 1389 5.13 acres in plot no. 1321, and
\n1.00 acre in plot no. 1120, in Bhagaband Mauza.\n<\/p>\n
               That the respondents-Forest Department contested the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
               The following issues were framed\n<\/p>\n
               (i)      Is the suit maintainable in the present form ?\n<\/p>\n
               (ii)     Is there any cause of action for the suit?\n<\/p>\n
               ( iii)   Is the suit barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and
\n                        acquiescence ?\n<\/p>\n
               ( iv)    Is the deed of settlement of the suit land in accordance with
\n                        law ?\n<\/p>\n
               (v)      Is the suit land reclaimed into paddy producing khet by the
\n                        plaintiffs?\n<\/p>\n
                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
             (vi)      Is the entire area of each suit plot acquired by the Bihar
\n                       Forest ?\n<\/p>\n
             ( vii)    Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs prayed in the suit?
\n             ( viii)   Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief or reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
             That issue nos. 4 and 5 were decided in affirmative.
\n             Regarding issue no. 6, it was inter alia held that claims of
\nthe defendants that the suit lands have been declared to be the
\nprotected forests is mere myth and it remains unproved as yet, and
\nthat the claim of the raiyats due to non-enquiry under section 29(3)
\nof the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has not been extinguished as yet. It
\nwas further held that the plaintiffs are in peaceful uninterrupted
\ncontinuous possession of the suit land since 1940-42 when the Bihar
\nPrivate Forest Act was not in existence and therefore the plaintiff
\nacquired indefeasible right much less raiyati right over the lands; by
\ntheir continuous possession of 12\/30 years; and that the plaintiffs
\nhave become occupancy right of the suit land under the provisions of
\nCNT Act, who cannot be ejected unless and until a decree of
\nejectment is executed as provided under section 22 of the CNT Act.\n<\/p>\n
             That against such judgment and decree an appeal being
\nTitle Appeal No. 33 of 2007 was preferred in the court of District
\nJudge, Bokaro, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad, and the
\nRange Officer, Chas and the same is pending. That the initiation of
\nthe impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and malafide.\n<\/p>\n
             Reliance was placed on AIR 1982 SC 1081-Government of
\nAndhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao; 2009 (2) AIR Jhar. R 332-
\nNavchetan Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand;
\n2009 (1) JLJR 126-Haranganj Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Vs. State of
\nJharkhand; 2004 (3) JCR 89 (Jhr)-Kamal Kumar Singhania Vs. State of
\nJharkhand; 2003 (2) JCR 701 (Jhr)-Manohar Lal Jain Vs. State of
\nJhakhand; 2000 (1) PLJR 209-Nagendra Mistry Vs. State of Bihar and
\n2009 (2) JLJR 393-Bharat Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)   That after the notification dated 24.5.1958 was issued
\nunder section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1972, it was necessary to
\nissue notification after holding enquiry and survey, as contemplated
\nunder section 29 (3) of the Act extinguishing the rights of the persons
\nconcerned, but no such notification was issued and therefore the said
\nnotification dated 24.5.1958 cannot be relied by the respondents for
\nclaiming that the lands in question are forest land and for initiating
\n                                 -4-<\/span>
\nthe impugned proceedings. That when the Forest Department could
\nnot produce notification under section 29(3) they are claiming that
\nthe lands have been declared “Private Forest”. That even from the
\nnotification declaring private forest it will appear that the extent of
\nplots declared as private forest is not mentioned and moreover plot
\nnos. 1389 and 1321 are not there at all.\n<\/p>\n
       That the raiyati-agricultural lands in question were purchased
\nby the Company under registered sale deeds as there was delay in
\nacquisition of land through Government. The right, title and interest
\nof the vendors of the Company and their predecessors did not vest
\nin the Government and were not extinguished by the process of law.
\nAIR 1966 SC 1847-State of Bihar Vs. Lt. Col. K.S.R. Swami was relied.\n<\/p>\n
       (iii)   The entire area in question has been surveyed in the year
\n1973-74 by Survey of India using the latest techniques and from such
\nsurvey map, it will appear that no part of the area, over which the
\nconstruction work of the Company is going on, contains forest area or
\nprivate protected forest.\n<\/p>\n
       (iv)    The principles of sustainable development       should be
\nkept in mind. Establishing the Industry and preservation of Forest,
\nboth    are    important.   NEERI   (National   Environment   Engineering
\nResearch Institute), a premier and leading environmental study
\nInstitute of India, after conducting extensive environment study for
\nradius of 10 Kilometers of plant area, has given approval. The
\nIndustry will earn revenue and will generate lot of direct and indirect
\nemployment. The Company has planned development of a modern
\ntownship and has undertaken 1,50,000 trees plantation programme.\n<\/p>\n
4.             The submission of the State-respondent are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
       (i)     That the Company was to establish its integrated steel
\nplant in Chandankyari Block for which permission was given, but it
\nhas not taken permission to establish it in Bhagaband Village of Chas
\nBlock, from any competent authority, including the Government of
\nIndia, Ministry of Environment of Forest under section 2 of Forest
\nConservation Act, 1980. That the Company and its employees started
\nnon forestry work over the protected forest of Bhagaband Mauza.\n<\/p>\n
       (ii)    That the lands in question have been notified and
\ndemarcated as protected forest land under section 29 of the Indian
\nForest Act, 1927, vide Notification No. C\/F-17014\/58-1429- R dated
\n24.5.1958. Forest Settlement Officer was appointed who after
\n                                   -5-<\/span>
\nverifying and considering all the relevant documents produced before
\nhim, from all the raiyat interested, passed necessary order\/enquiry
\nreport demarcating different plots as protected forest. A detailed
\ncadastral map was prepared on that basis, in which different plots of
\nBhagaband Mauza have been demarcated. The areas of demarcated
\nplots are 51.34 acre in plot no. 1120, 51.62 acres in plot no. 1159,
\n21.64 acre in plot no. 1389, and 8.78 acre in plot no. 1321. On the
\nsaid cadastral map, all the three concerned officials i.e. Forest
\nSettlement Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and Superintendence of
\nSurveyors put their signatures. Annexures-B and C to the counter
\naffidavit of WPS No. 3362 of 2009 were referred.\n<\/p>\n
                That thereafter, notification under section 30 of the
\nIndian Forest Act has been promulgated, and thus all the provisions
\nunder section 29 for declaring the area as notified demarcated forest
\nland has been completed. That in the survey khatiyan, the status and
\nnature of the lands in question is mentioned as “Gairabad Malik-
\nIsmal Malik” and “Jangal Jhari”. That the Company did not acquire
\nright over the plots in question by registered sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)   In view of 1994 (2) PLJR 731,-Bhuneshwar Pandit Vs. The
\nState of Bihar, writ court should not enter into disputed questions of
\nfact.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)    Paragraphs 39, 47, 48, 52 (2) and 52(3) of the judgment
\nreported in (2009) 5 SCC 373- Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of
\nKerala was relied to contend that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
\nwill apply retrospectively; and that prior approval of Central
\nGovernment is necessary for carrying on non-forestry work in forest
\narea, and that this Act will apply to all forests, irrespective of nature
\nof ownership or classification thereof. Paragraph 4 of the judgment
\nreported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs.
\nUnion of India & others was also relied.\n<\/p>\n
5.              Reply on behalf of the petitioner are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
                That the said Annexure-B and C shows that such
\nproceedings was taken prior to issuance of the Notification dated
\n24.5.1958, under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and that
\nthe Notification under section 30 is only for reserving trees. Thus
\nrespondents have failed to produce any Notification issued under
\nsection 29(3) of the Act, and therefore, they cannot claim that the
\nlands in question is protected forest. The respondents also did not
\n                                      -6-<\/span>
\ncomply with the order dated 2.12.2009 passed in the WP(C) No. 3362
\nof 2009.          However from the following chart annexed by the
\nrespondents themselves it will appear that part of the lands in
\nquestion are involved in the Suit – Appeal.<\/p>\n
\nMauza      Plot     Total      Area     Area   Encroach   Area     Permission\n           no.      area     notified decreed ment done recorded granted by\n                                as       to       by    as Jungle    Central\n<\/pre>\n
                            projected Vendor petitioner   Jhari   Government
\n                              forest  vide T\/S           Survey of India u\/s 2
\n                                                        Khatiyan    of Forest
\n                                                                  Conservation
\n                                                                       Act<\/p>\n
     1      2         3        4           5       6        7           8<\/span>
\nBhaga 1120         89.16    51.34    1.00      16.23    89.16     Not taken
\nbandh
\n      1159         99.84    51.62    8.50      51.62    99.84     Not taken
\n          1389     66.98    21.64    3.05      21.64    66.98     Not taken
\n          Total    255.98   124.60   12.55     89.49    255.98<\/p>\n
6.                From the aforesaid submission of the parties, it will
\nappear that several disputed questions of facts about right, title and
\ninterest are involved in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
         In view of the judgments relied by the parties as noticed above,
\nsuch disputed questions can neither be decided in these writ
\npetitions, nor in the summary proceedings in question under BPLE
\nAct. Moreover, the appeal-T.A. No. 33 of 2007, arising out of the suit,
\ninvolving the said questions between the predecessors in interest of
\nthe petitioner- company and the respondents is pending. However, it
\nis observed that the said appeal should be disposed of expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
7.                In the result, the BPLE proceedings in question are
\nquashed, with liberty to the parties to take recourse to and\/ or pursue
\nappropriate proceedings before the competent authority\/courts of
\nlaw. But status quo as on today shall be maintained, for one month
\nfrom today, to enable the parties to obtain orders from competent
\nauthority\/court.\n<\/p>\n
                  However, it is made clear that this order will not prejudice
\nthe respective cases of the parties in other proceedings\/suit\/appeal
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
                  With these observations, liberty and directions, these writ
\npetitions are disposed of. However, no costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (R. K. Merathia, J)
\nRakesh\/Ravi\/AFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009 With WP(C) No. 2515 of 2009 In WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009 1. Rama Shankar Singh @ R.S. Singh. 2. Durga Prasad Banerjee @ D.P. Banerjee. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nElectrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1803,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010"},"wordCount":1803,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010","name":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-17T02:41:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/electrosteel-integrated-ltd-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Electrosteel Integrated Ltd.& vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}