JUDGMENT : S.N.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the Indian Iron and Steel Company limited herein after to be referred to as "the petitioner Company", for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Annexures 4, 5, and 7 and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the ORDER :s contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7 to the application. The petitioner is a public limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and it carries on coal mining operations at various places including village Jitpur-Noonodih in the district of Dhanbad. The material facts which are alleged in the application are these. On the 28th of May, 1902, two persons named Shri Kristo Kishore Adhikary and Shri Hardayal Singh took settlement both of underground and surface land of Mauza Jitpur from the then tenure-holder Raja Shri Durga Prasad Singh, ex-zamindar of Jharia. There was a stipulation in the deed that the lessee would be at liberty to occupy as much surface land as may be required by it for carrying out coal mining operations and for all surface land held or owned by the lessee for the said mining operations, the lessee would be liable to pay surface rent at the flat rate of Rs. 2/- per bigha for Danga lands and Rs. 5/- per bigha for cultivable lands. By a registered sub-lease dated the 29th of April, 1904, Shri Adhikary and Shri Singh made a settlement of the underground and surface land of village Jitpur in favour of Messrs Bengal Iron & Co. Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Company. Thereafter the mining operations and colliery work in village Jitpur were started by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Company. Subsequently the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Company as well as the petitioner Company, to facilitate their mining operations, acquired the surface land as a working mining lessee and constructed labour quarters, offices, bungalows, engine house, power house etc. Thus, according to the petitioner Company, the entire surface land in Mouza Jitpur, which is in possession of the petitioner Company, is being exclusively used for colliery purposes and no part of the same is being used for agricultural, horticultural or commercial purposes. Thus, according to the petitioner Company, the entire surface land in Mouza Jitpur, which is in possession of the petitioner Company, is being exclusively used for colliery purposes and no part of the same is being used for agricultural, horticultural or commercial purposes. It is also alleged that the State of Bihar through its agent, the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, has been receiving royalties and surface rent in terms of the mining lease. It appears that on the 17th of March, 1966, the petitioner Company received a notice from the Circle Officer, Jharia (respondent no. 4), calling upon it to show cause as to why fixation of their rent proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act should not be initiated in respect of certain plots of land of village Jitpur recorded in Khata Nos. 25, 33, 36, 38 and 54, having a total area of 39.32 acres. A copy of the notice has been made Annexure 2' to the application. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner Company filed a petition objecting to the fixation of the fair rent on the ground that in terms of the registered lease executed by the zamindar of Jharia in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Company, the petitioner Company was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2/- per bigha. A copy of the objection filed by the petitioner Company has been made Annexure 3' to the writ application. The Circle Officer (respondent no. 4) by his ORDER :dated the 14th of March, 1967 (Annexure 4) fixed the rent at Rs. 450/- per acre, besides cess and education cess, and transmitted the records to the Lard Reforms Deputy Collector for necessary action. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his ORDER :dated the 23rd of March, 1968 (Annexure 5) accepted the recommendation of the Circle Officer and fixed rent for 39.32 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 450/- per acre besides cess and education cess. The total rent along with cess amounted to Rs. 19,905.75. According to his ORDER :the rent was to be realised from the date of the vesting of the tenure. Being aggrieved by the ORDER :of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. 450/- per acre besides cess and education cess. The total rent along with cess amounted to Rs. 19,905.75. According to his ORDER :the rent was to be realised from the date of the vesting of the tenure. Being aggrieved by the ORDER :of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. The Additional Collector by his ORDER :dated the 16th of July, 1968 (Annexure 7) modified the ORDER :of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector to the extent that he fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 360/- per acre in respect of 25.60 acres of land. With regard to 13.62 acres of land he took the view that the said portion of land had been subsided and as such he petitioner Company was not liable to pay rent in respect of that portion of the land. He upheld the ORDER :of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector with regard to the liability of the petitioner Company to pay cess and education cess. The petitioner Company thereupon filed the present writ application in this Court on the 28th of January, 1969, challenging the validity of the ORDER :s as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7. 2. Mr. Ranadev Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Company, raised the contention that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to fix the rent under Section 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter to be called "the Act". According to learned Counsel the relevant provisions which are applicable are Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. There is substance in the contention raised. As defined in Section 2(r) of the Act. Tenure-holder' means a person who has acquired from a proprietor or from any other tenure-holder a right to hold land for the purpose of collecting rent or bringing it under cultivation by establishing tenants on it and includes-- (i) the successors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such right, (ii) a person who holds such right in trust, (iii) a holder of a tenure created for the maintenance of any person, (iv) a ghatwal and the successors-in-interest of a ghatwal, and (v) where a tenure-holder is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot, his guardian, committee or other legal curator. The petitioner Company is not a tenure-holder as it has not acquired any land for the purpose of collecting rent or bringing it under cultivation by establishing tenants on it. The Additional Collector wrongly assumed that the petitioner Company is partly a tenure-holder. The petitioner Company is only a mining sub-lessee. Fair and equitable ground rent under Section 7 of the Act can be fixed only in respect of such building or structures and the lands over which they stand (other than any buildings used primarily as offices or cutcheries) as were in the possession of an intermediary at the commencement of the Act and were used as golas, factories or mills for the purpose of trade, manufacture or commerce etc. The provisions of Section 7 will not apply in the matter of fixation of fair and equitable rent in respect of buildings and lands which are in occupation of mining lessee for the purposes connected with the working or extraction of the mines. It appears that the revenue authorities failed to consider the relevant provisions which are contained in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. Section 10(1) of the Act reads as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where immediately before the date of vesting of the estate or tenure there is a subsisting lease of mines or minerals comprised in the estate or tenure or any part thereof, the whole or that part of the estate or tenure comprised in such lease shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the holder of the said subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of that lease, and such holder shall be entitled to retain possession of the lease-hold property. Section 11 of the Act provides thus: Where by virtue of Section 9 or section 10, any lease of mines and minerals comprised in an estate or tenure is deemed to be given by the State all buildings and lands not included in such lease, whether comprised in that or any other estate or tenure, which vest in the State by operation of this Act and are in the use and occupation of the lessee for purposes connected with the working or extraction of the mines and minerals comprised in the lease, including the lands upon which any works, machinery, tramways or sidings appertaining to the mines are situate, shall be deemed to have been leased by the State to that lessee with effect from the date of vesting of the estate or tenure, and the lessee shall be entitled to retain possession of all such buildings and land subject to the payment of such fair and equitable ground-rent as may be agreed upon between the State and the lessee, or in default of agreement as may be fixed by a Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 12. Section 12 of the Act provides for the appointment and constitution of Mines Tribunal for the purposes of Sections 9, 11 and 31 of the Act and lays down the extent of the power of such a Tribunal. In the matter of fixation of fair and equitable rent in respect of buildings and lands not included in the mining lease but which are in the use and occupation of the lessee for purposes connected with the working or extraction of the mines and minerals including the lands upon which any works, machinery, tramways or sidings etc., are situate, the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act will be attracted. As provided under Section 11, though such buildings and lands will vest in the State by the operation of the Act, the lessee shall be entitled to retain such buildings and lands subject to the payment of fair and equitable ground-rent as may be agreed upon between the State and the lessee. If there be no such agreement on the question as to what should be the fair and equitable ground rent, it shall be fixed by the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 12. 3. If there be no such agreement on the question as to what should be the fair and equitable ground rent, it shall be fixed by the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 12. 3. In the instant case there being no agreement between the petitioner Company and the State Government as to what should be the fair and equitable ground-rent for the lands, the proper procedure which ought to have been followed was to refer the matter to the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 12 of the Act. Instead of doing that, the revenue authorities wrongly applied the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and purported to fix the fair and equitable ground-rent under that provision by the impugned ORDER :(Annexures 4, 5 and 7). It is manifest that in fixing the fair and equitable ground-rent under Section 7 of the Act the revenue authorities committed errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record. The application, therefore, must succeed. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :s as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7 are quashed by a writ of certiorari and the respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned ORDER :s. In the circumstances, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. I may observe that it will be open to the State Government to proceed in accordance with law and to refer the matter to the Mines Tribunal for fixation of a fair and equitable ground-rent. I agree. Application allowed