2026:JHHC:22059 --1-- W.P. (C.) No. 5320 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No.5320 of 2008 ---- Tata Steel Limited, having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, PO and PS – Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (Maharashtra), through its Chief Legal (Corporate Services), Smt. Meena Lall, wife of Shri Behari Lall, resident of Park Enclave, Northern Town, PO and PS – Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, through its Managing Director, Having office at Vikas Bhawan, Adityapur, PO and PS – Adityapur, District – Seraikella-Kharsawan 3. Secretary, Department of Industries, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 :- Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C) II :- Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, (AC to SC (L&C) II) For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate :- Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate :- Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Advocate ---- 17/27.07.2026 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned SC (L&C) II appearing for the State and Mr. Ajit Kumar along with Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This matter was taken up on 15.06.2026 and on that day petitioner and the respondent No.2 jointly pointed out to this Court 2026:JHHC:22059 --2-- W.P. (C.) No. 5320 of 2008 that parties have agreed to settle the dispute and in view of that the matter was adjourned for 23.06.2026 and on the same ground the time was further taken on 23.06.2026 and 07.07.2026. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that twice the authorities concerned of the Tata Steel Limited has gone to Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, however, later on they have stopped going and in that view of the matter he argued the matter at length and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - AIADA has also replied the same as well as Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent State. 4. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of that part of the order dated 09.07.2005 passed by the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of demand of interest on land cost and maintenance levy was rejected. a. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction for declaring that the demand of interest on land cost for the period between 1990-91 and 2001-02 is illegal and arbitrary as the demand on the principal amount of land cost amounting to Rs. 14,91,753/- was raised on 02.05.2001 and as such, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay interest for the period for which no demand was raised. 2026:JHHC:22059 --3-- W.P. (C.) No. 5320 of 2008 b. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction declaring that the charging of Rs.47,71,800/- per year towards maintenance levy in the name of betterment charges under Section 6(6) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is wholly illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction, inter alia, firstly as no previous approval in terms of Section 6(6) from the State Government has been obtained and secondly on account of the fact that the concerned respondents have not been able to substantiate as to the basis/data on which the aforesaid amount is being charged. c. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction declaring that betterment charges under Section 6(6) of the Act cannot be charged annually by the concerned respondent as the same can only be realized on one time basis. d. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction declaring that betterment charges under Section 6(6) of the Act cannot be levied for maintenance of the basic amenities provided by the respondent-AIADA and can only be charged if the value of any property in an area has increased as a consequence of any development work executed by the authority. e. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order by raising any demand from the petitioner. f. Further prayer is made for writ, order or direction for 2026:JHHC:22059 --4-- W.P. (C.) No. 5320 of 2008 quashing the notice issued by the respondent No.2 as contained in memo No.207/ADA dated 02.01.2001, whereby and whereunder all the Industrial Units under the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority were informed to pay maintenance levy per year at the rate of Rs.5000/- per acre as the same could not have been issued in purported exercise of powers under Section 6(6) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and that too without obtaining the prior approval of the State Government as mandated by Section 6(6) of the Act and as such the action of the respondents concerned is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. g. Further prayer is made for writ, order or order particularly, a writ or in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents, particularly, respondent No.2 to execute a lease deed in respect of 42.68 acres of land situated at village Kalikapur and Saldih within Adityapur Industrial Area, District Seraikella-Kharsawan as the petitioner has fulfilled the pre-conditions for executing such lease pursuant to the decision taken in the 54th Board Meeting held on 23.02.1990. 5. After the argument has been concluded Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his junior has received the instruction that today the authorities of Tata have made representation before AIADA with regard to the dispute and after the said submission when the Court interacted with learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel 2026:JHHC:22059 --5-- W.P. (C.) No. 5320 of 2008 appearing for the respondent No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State all have agreed that the matter can be disposed of to take a fresh decision on the representation made by the petitioner herein. 6. In view of their such submission and without entering into the merit of the case, this petition is being disposed of on consent of all the sides. 7. It has been pointed out that Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA) has been renamed as Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA), Adityapur Region. 8. In view of the above, the AIADA/JIADA will take decision within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order on the fresh representation made by Tata Steel in accordance with law and if necessary AIADA/JIADA may sit along with authorities of Tata Steel to settle the dispute. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 27.07.2026 Sangam/