2026:JHHC:20576 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4705 of 2026 ------ M/s GM Iron and Steel Company Limited, (CIN: U27310WB2007PLC113656), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 4, Chowringhee Lane, 9th Floor, Diamond Chamber, Room No.9L, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700016, represented through its Director Anmol Bhalotia aged about 29 years, S/o Late Jaydeep Bhalotia, resident of Flat No.5A, Akchat Garden, 16A Deshpran Shashmal Road, Charu Market, Post and Police Station, Tollygunge, Kolkata-700033. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Office situated at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Post and Police Station Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA), Adityapur Region, through its Regional Director, office situated at JIADA Bhawan, Adityapur, Post and Police Station Adityapur, Dist- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 4. Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA), Adityapur Region, office situated at JIADA Bhawan, Adityapur, Post and Police Station Adityapur, Dist- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 5. M/s Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd. (CIN : 27106WB1994PTC065260), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 138, canning Street, Room No.203, 2nd Foor, PO & PS-Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 represented though its Managing Director, Ajay Kumar Murarka. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit, Advocate Mr. CGA Vardhan, Advocate ------ 02/ 06th July, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays quash the order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-12) passed in Appeal No.30 of 2022, whereby the intervention application of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner further prayed to make allotment of industrial plot admeasuring 4.67 acres appertaining to Khata No.121, Plot Nos.111-P, 112P, village Parwatipur, PS-Seraikella, District-Seraikella- Kharsawan in favour of the petitioner. 4. That respondent No.5 was allotted land by AIADA bearing A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-5(P), A-6(P), A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, including road of 60 ft. wide admeasuring about 8.00 acres + 5 acres vide Land 2026:JHHC:20576 Page | 2 Allotment No.338/ADA dated 31.03.2000 and 761/ADA dated 19.04.2004 and was consequently given possession of the same on 04.04.2000 and 29.06.2004, respectively for the purpose of establishing and running an iron and steel industry. Lease-deed were executed. The respondent No.5 applied for further allotment of adjacent land bearing Khata No.121, lot nos.111(P) and 112(P) in the village Parwatipur, and then authority AIADA (now JIADA Adityapur Region) being convinced with the request and need of respondent no.5 allotted additional 4.67 acres of land bearing Khata No.121, Plot Nos.111(P) and 112(P), Thana No.133, Mouza Parwatipur vide order no.1655/ADA dated 28.10.2004. 5. It is their case that though the land was allotted yet no lease-deed was executed. Respondent No.5 was declared non- performing asset and proceeding under the SARFAESEI Act was initiated including taking over the movable property and immovable assets. The assets were sold in E-Auction. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted the entire 13 acres of land pertaining to A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-5(P), A-6(P), A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, including road of 60 ft. wide in favour of the present petitioner vide allotment order no.517/AR dated 27.03.2021, lease-deed was also executed on 16.04.2021. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that there is a land in the back side of the plot which is land locked that needs to be settle in favor of the petitioner. It was further submitted that respondent No.5 preferred an appeal being Appeal No.30 of 2022 before the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Jharkhand, which is pending. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for intervention, which was rejected. 8. The petitioner wants settlement of the landlocked land, thus, he filed an intervention application. In the appeal filed by M/s Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd. i.e., respondent No.5, the petitioner cannot claim any independent relief. 9. Further, if the concerned land was later on de-notified from the forests area, then also it is the discretion of the JIADA, whether to allot the land to any person or not. JIADA has a procedure and rules for allotment, which cannot be by-passed. Merely by filing an application and making a claim, will not entitle the petitioner for the allotment. For allotting a land by JIADA, all the procedures have been followed. 10. Further, from the impugned order, it is clear that the land which the petitioner is claiming for settlement in favour of the petitioner 2026:JHHC:20576 Page | 3 was never allotted to respondent No.-5, by JIADA. Just because of the land is contiguous to the petitioner’s land, the petitioner is making such claim. Settlement based on such claim is not tenable legally. 11. Considering all these points, I find no merit in this application, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06th July, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 14.07.2026.