JUDGMENT M.N.Roy 1. THIS rule is directed against notices dated 6th November, 1971 and 30th November, 1971 (Annexure E and F respectively) whereby Jnanananda Industries Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) was directed to make necessary arrangements for the payment of royalty dues on or by 12th November, 1971. The said notices were issued by the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer, Asansol, respondent No. 1. 2. THE petitioners, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, has its registered office at Ukhra, in the District of Burdwan. It has been alleged that Maharajadhiraja of Burdwan, was ceased and possessed of certain Zamindari estates and properties, of which the coal lands, mines and hereditaments comprising the Guru Gopinath Colliery (hereinafter referred to as the said Colliery) of the said petitioner, formed a part. By an indenture dated the 27th October, 1915 the said Maharaja granted and demised to one Ray Pulin Behari Singha Bahadur and others, the said coal lands, mines and hereditaments comprising the said colliery. THE said Singha Bahadur, by another indenture of sub-lease dated 5th July 1920, demised and granted to Ukhra Estate Zamindari Private Limited, amongst others, the said coal lands and mines comprising the said colliery for 999 years, effective from 1st day of Baisakh 1327 B.S. Ukhra Estate Zamindary Private Limited, in their turn by an indenture of under lease dated 19th March, 1950 granted and demised to the petitioners, the said coal lands and mines comprising the said colliery, for a period of 960 years on and from 21st March 1947, subject to payment of royalty at the rate of 6 annas per ton of all kinds of coal, with a minimum charge fixed at Rs. 1680/- only per annum. The petitioners have stated that since 21st March 1947 they have been working in the said colliery and is in peaceful possession thereof. They have also stated that thereafter, they acquired the coal mining right of several Bajaipti lands from several Bajaiptidars and has also been working those lands as parts of the said colliery. 3. 1680/- only per annum. The petitioners have stated that since 21st March 1947 they have been working in the said colliery and is in peaceful possession thereof. They have also stated that thereafter, they acquired the coal mining right of several Bajaipti lands from several Bajaiptidars and has also been working those lands as parts of the said colliery. 3. IT appears that the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force on 12th February 1954 and thereafter a notification was published under section 4 of the said Act by the State of West Bengal on 15th April 1955, as a result whereof the right, title and interest in the properties in question of the said Maharajadhiraja of Burdwan, who was the intermediary, vested in the State. Thereafter on 16th January 1957. the State of West Bengal promulgated an Ordinance by which section 2(i) of the said Act was amended in the following manner : - "Intermediary means a proprietor, tenure holder, under-tenure holder or any other intermediary above a raiyat or a non-agricultural tenant and includes a service tenure-holder and, in relation to mines and minerals, includes a leasee and a sub-lessee." 4. THE petitioners have stated that thus on the basis of the amendment as mentioned hereinbefore, the State Government started demanding royalties from the working lessees of the mines with effect from 15th April, 1955. THEre is also no dispute that on 9th March 1957, the State Government enacted the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment Act, 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Amending Act), which came into force immediately after the said Ordinance ceased to operate. THE petitioners have alleged the said Ordinance and the Amending Act in question as unconstitutional and void. THEre is also no dispute that some of the working lessees challenged the demand of the State Government and on such challenge, this Hon'ble Court in the case of Katrash Jharia Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 66 C.W.N. 304, was pleased to hold that the amendment of section 2(i) alone could not and did not affect the interest of the mining lessees and sublessees and for the purpose of affecting their right and/or interest, a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act was necessary. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 66 C.W.N. 304, was pleased to hold that the amendment of section 2(i) alone could not and did not affect the interest of the mining lessees and sublessees and for the purpose of affecting their right and/or interest, a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act was necessary. It appears that in the meantime on 28m December 1957, the Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1957 Act), by which the regulation of mining, development of minerals in particular provisions for fixation and payment of royalties and modification of mining leases and terms and conditions thereof were taken under the control of the Union. THE said Act of 1957 came into force with effect from 1st June 1958. THEreafter, on 29th December 1961, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Respondent No. 3), issued a notification under section 30A of the said 1957 Act, by which the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said 1957 Act were sought to be applied to all coal mining leases granted before 25th October 1949, subject to the modification that the lessees shall pay royalties at the rates specified in any agreement between the lessee or lessor or at the rate of 2 1/2% of F.O.R. price, whichever is higher, in lieu of the rate of royalties specified in the second schedule to the Act. THE said notice is in Annexure 'A' to the petition. THE petitioners amongst others have alleged the notification in question to be illegal, ultra vires, invalid and void, since the same was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India and not by the Central Government and as such and also because the same was not issued in the name of the President of India, the same was contended to be violative of Article 77 of the Constitution. Thereafter, on or about 1st January 1966. the said respondent No. 3 issued another notification under section 30A of the said 1957, act, by which it was declared that the provisions of section 9 (1) of the Act shall apply to or in relation to mining leases in respect of coal, granted before 25th October 1949. The petitioners have also submitted the said notification to be unconstitutional invalid and void for reasons of mentioned hereinbefore. The petitioners have also submitted the said notification to be unconstitutional invalid and void for reasons of mentioned hereinbefore. A copy of the said notification is at Annexure 'B'. Thereafter, by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act XXII of 1964) section 5 of the said Act was amended by adding thereto a new sub-section as sub-section 2 in the following terms :- "(2) for removal of doubt it is hereby declared the notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other land, rights and interests in mines and minerals of all intermediaries, being lessees and sublessees, in any notified area shall be deemed to have vested in the State with effect from the date of vesting mentioned in the notification under section 4 in respect of such notified areas." 5. THE validity and constitutionality of the said provision has also been challenged by the petitioners and they have contended such amendment to be void and beyond the competence of the State Legislature. THE petitioners have also alleged that after the incorporation of the said amendment of 1964, the State Government again started demanding royalty from them with effect from 14th April 1955. THEy have further alleged that the validity of the said amendment being questioned by them, the State Government on or about 23rd April, 1956 made a proposal to the Joint Working Committee of the Coal industries, asking their members to enter into an agreement with the State Government by virtue of which the working lessees including the petitioners were to be treated by the State Government as direct lessees under them with effect from 1st January, 1962 and the petitioners along with others were required to agree to pay to the State Government, royalty at the rate of 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal with effect from 1st January, 1962 upto 31st December, 1965 and thereafter, at the rate of 5% F.O.R. price of coal from 1st January 1966 to 30th June 1966. It has been further stated that the petitioners along with others were also asked to agree to pay such royalty in 36 equal instalments. A copy of the letter to the above effect is in Annexure "C" to the petition. It has been further stated that the petitioners along with others were also asked to agree to pay such royalty in 36 equal instalments. A copy of the letter to the above effect is in Annexure "C" to the petition. THE petitioners have further alleged that with the object of avoiding further and future complications, they had without prejudice to their rights and contentions, on 19th September 1966 submitted a draft agreement (Annexure D), by which they agreed to be treated as direct lessees under the State of West Bengal from 1st January 1962 and further agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 68,898.96 P. calculated on the basis as mentioned hereinbefore. THE petitioners have alleged that after submitting the draft agreement as aforesaid and accounts, in pursuance of the said proposal of the Government, they in fact paid the sum of Rs. 68,698.96 P. in 36 equal instalments but it has been alleged that the State Government in their turn, did not ultimately complete the agreement and in fact in several meetings with the representatives of the coal industries, the authorities concerned informed the members of the Joint Working Committee that the State Government was unwilling to complete the agreement in question. THE petitioners have alleged that in view of such attitude of the State Government and apprehending further complications and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they stopped further payment to the State Government, as their lessor was demanding payment of royalty and furthermore as they were advised that the State Government was not legally entitled to realise royalty directly from them. It has also been submitted that the State Government having stepped into the shoes of the said Maharaja of Burdwan, was and is not entitled to any royalty from the petitioners since the said Maharaja was not entitled to any royalty in terms of his agreement dated 27th October 1915 executed in favour of Rai Pulin Behari Singha Bahadur. 6. It has also been submitted that the State Government having stepped into the shoes of the said Maharaja of Burdwan, was and is not entitled to any royalty from the petitioners since the said Maharaja was not entitled to any royalty in terms of his agreement dated 27th October 1915 executed in favour of Rai Pulin Behari Singha Bahadur. 6. THEREAFTER, on or about 6th November, 1971, the petitioners received a notice dated 5th November, 1971 (Annexure E), from the Subdivisional Land Reforms Officers, Asansol, Respondent No. 1, informing them that no payment of royalty had been made after the quarter ending March, 1967 and they were informed that the last date for such payment was 2nd December 1968 and it was further demanded that such royalty should be paid at once and in default appropriate legal action would be taken. After that, on 30th November, 1971 the petitioners has been served with another notice by the said Respondent No. 1 (Annexure F), demanding a sum of Rs. 5,81,155.68 P., stated to be due to the Government of West Bengal as royalty and other dues. By the said notice, royalty has been demanded at the rate of 5% F.O.R. price from 5th April, 1955 to 31st March, 1971. From a reference to the said demand at Annexure "F" it further appears that a sum of Rs. 2,63,638.21 P. was also demanded on account of interest @ 12% per annum up to November 12, 1971. In fact the petitioners have contended that such demand was irregular, improper, void and unauthorised, since there was neither any demand for the same nor any provision therefor in any of the instruments as referred to hereinbefore and in any event such a demand of interst, was contrary to the provisions of the Interest Act. In fact this was the sixth branch of the submissions of Mr. Barman. 7. ALTHOUGH the Rule was made ready as regards service on February 14, 1974 and the appearances of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were complete on August 24, 1974, no return to the Rule has been filed by them. It may also be mentioned that the return to the Rule has not also been filed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Union of India. Those Respondents of course contested the claims of the petitioners through their respective learned Advocates. 1 and 2 were complete on August 24, 1974, no return to the Rule has been filed by them. It may also be mentioned that the return to the Rule has not also been filed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Union of India. Those Respondents of course contested the claims of the petitioners through their respective learned Advocates. It was contended by them that the Central Act, after receipt of the assent on December 28, 1957, came into force on June 1, 1958 and section 2 (i) of the said Act, after the Ordinance dated January 16, 1957 came into the Statute Book as Act 4 of 1957 and thus the effect would be that the definition of intermediary, lessees and sublessee were included with retrospective effect from that date i. e. March 9, 1957. Id was also submitted that section 5 (2) of the said Act became effective retrospectively from November 21, 1964. On the question of rates, it was submitted, relying on the determination of Chittatosh Mookerji, J. in the case of Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors, 78 C.W.N. 44, that no determination contrary to the decision as aforesaid if at all, should be made. It was also submitted that the question of interest would depend on the interpretation of the deed and in view of the necessary provisions therein, the petitioners were bound to pay the same or such contractual amount as agreed. It was of course submitted that if the demand has been made on account of interest, contrary to the provisions of the deed, then that would at best make the demand in excess of the contractual amount bad, and not the whole of it or the deed in question. The same argument was advanced on the demand of Fuel Coal which was challenged by the petitioner under item 7 of their submissions. 8. MR. Barman firstly submitted relying on the determinations in the case of Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 66 C.W.N. 304, that in the admitted absence of a fresh notification in terms of section 4 of the said Act, the underground rights of the lessees and sublessees could not vest in the State Government and as such the entire action in demanding royalty was improper. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 66 C.W.N. 304, that in the admitted absence of a fresh notification in terms of section 4 of the said Act, the underground rights of the lessees and sublessees could not vest in the State Government and as such the entire action in demanding royalty was improper. He secondly submitted that even on the basis of the incorporation of the Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, which became operative on June 1, 1958, there could not also be any vesting of the interest which is involved in this case. He thirdly submitted that even on the interpretation of section 29 of the said Mines Act, the interest as involved in this case could not vest. It was submitted fourthly by MR. Barman that when a statutory lease as in the instant case was created and was operative, so there could not also be any vesting of the interest of the petitioner. It was submitted fifthly by MR. Barman that the royalty as claimed by the impugned order dated November 30, 1971 was irregular, unauthorised and illegal and in any event it was submitted sixthly and seventhly that since there has been no provision for interest and price for fuel coke, the demands as made on those accounts were also improper and unauthorised. The claim for interest, as made was also submitted to be bad and unauthorised under the provisions of the Interest Act. It was submitted then and eighthly that the notification under section 30A of the Mines and Minerals Regulation Act was bad, because the same was not issued by or under the signature of the President of India but by the Secretary. It was submitted ninety by MR. Barman that because of the incorporation of the aforesaid provisions of section 30A, the right to realise royalty at a higher rate as confered under section 9 (1) upon the State Government, should be deemed to have been kept in abeyance and tenthly and lastly it was submitted by him that the acceptance of royalty or the payments on that account in terms of the agreement in question would mean that the Respondents are estopped from acting contrary to the agreement in question. In the Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd.'s Case (Supra), on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. In the Katras Jharia Coal Co. Ltd.'s Case (Supra), on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Barman, it has been held and observed by this Court that: "The word "estate" or "tenure" has not been defined by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 but under sub-section (p) of s. 3, expressions used in the Act and not otherwise defined, would have, in Act, 1885 applied, the same meaning as in that Act and would include underground rights. The object of the Notification under s.4 was to make known to the persons affected, the fact that their estates or rights have vested in the State. Lessees and sub-lessees of mines and minerals were not included and there was no intention of giving them any notice. There is nothing in s. 4 whereby it can be deemed that a Notification issued in 1955 should be considered as a notice to lessees and sub-lessees, who were then outside the purview of the Act and have only come in by reason of the amendment in 1957. There is no provision for such a notice to be retrospective. A notice must in fact be given to amount to notice and cannot be notional." The effect of the amendment of the original definition of the "intermediary" in 1957 together with the deeming clause is that since 1954 the State Government must be taken to have possessed the right of acquiring the estates or rights therein of all intermediaries, including that of lessees and sub-lessees of mines and minerals. But in the case of these lessees and sub- lessees who have been included as a result of the amendment, a fresh Notification must be issued in terms of s. 4 in order to vest their estates or rights therein in the State Government. Once that Notification is published there is mo difficulty in working out the provisions in the body of the Act with regard to the class or classes of persons included within the definition of an "intermediary" by the amendment. The main purpose of the Act is the acquisition of "zamindary interests", which included underground rights in Land, in order to abolish all middlemen. Under the amendment the lessee and sub-lessee has been expressly defined to be an "intermediary" and the Provision of the Act would now be applicable to such interests. The main purpose of the Act is the acquisition of "zamindary interests", which included underground rights in Land, in order to abolish all middlemen. Under the amendment the lessee and sub-lessee has been expressly defined to be an "intermediary" and the Provision of the Act would now be applicable to such interests. The under- ground rights in mines and minerals or any other undergrounds right that may have existed in the "intermediary" would vest in the State Government. The interest of the lessees and sublessees in underground right is a right which is not merely the right to a money claim. The right to get a money payment arises out of the right to the property. Sub-clause (a) of Art. 31A of the Constitution is very general in its terms, and would include the acquisition of any estate or of any right therein, also the extinguishment or modification of such rights. The provisions as to lessees and sub-lessees of mines and minerals, which have been introduced by the amendment came within the expression "extinguishment or modification". Sections 28 and 29 are subject to the proviso that all such terms and conditions shall be consistent with the provisions of any Central Act for the time being in force relating to the grant of mining lease or modification thereof. With this proviso operation of the Central Act, Rules and Regulations are kept in full force. If there is any clash between any provision of the Act and the Central Act, Rules and Regulations, the Central Act, Rules and Regulations will prevail. The provisions of the Act are not avoided on this ground. The Act or chapter IV of the Act is not ultra vires. And as stated hereinbefore, it was submitted that a fresh notification, in terms of section 4 of the said Act was necessary, to vest in the State Government, the underground rights of the lessees and sub-lessees. The provisions of the Act are not avoided on this ground. The Act or chapter IV of the Act is not ultra vires. And as stated hereinbefore, it was submitted that a fresh notification, in terms of section 4 of the said Act was necessary, to vest in the State Government, the underground rights of the lessees and sub-lessees. It was argued that since such rights were not vested, in terms of the notification under the said section, which was dated April 15, 1955, rights of lessees were not affected although the definition was amended by the Ordinance dated February 16, 1957 and the said Act which was passed on February 12, 1954, was further and suitably amended on March 9, 1957 by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1957 (Act 4 of the 1957), which was published in the Extraordinary issues of Calcutta Gazette of March 9, 1957. 9. SECTION 4 of the said Act contemplated a notification by which all estates and rights of intermediaries under the said Act at the relevant time could vest in the State with effect from April 15, 1955 and the relevant notification in question was dated August 16, 1954. Chapter VI of the said Act, which deals with "Acquisition of Interests of Raiyats and under-Raiyats" was introduced by Act XXV of 1955 and at the time when the said Chapter was sought to be enforced, there was a fresh notification under section 4 of the said Act, which was dated April 10, 1956. In view of the above and also in view of the fact that the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, (Act 67 of 1957) came into force on December 12, 1957 and in view of the declaration made that the same became operative from June 1, 1958, it was submitted that the interest in the instant case had not vested. 10. THE above argument was further sought to be supplemented with reference to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Mines Act). 10. THE above argument was further sought to be supplemented with reference to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Mines Act). It was submitted that since the said Mines Act came into effect from December 28, 1957 and the declaration under the Central Act became operative from June 1, 1958 and the initial notification under section 30A of the same, which makes special provisions relating to mining lease for coal granted before October 25, 1949, was dated December 29, 1961 and the subsequent notification was issued on January 1, 1966, which again was not a proper notification as the same was signed by the Secretary of the Ministry concerned, so also there could not be any vesting. It was also submitted that under sections 29 and 30A of the said Mines Act. which are to the following effect :- Section-29 : Existing rules to continue - All rules made or purporting to have been made under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1948 (53 of 1948), shall, in so far as they relate to matters for which provision is made in this Act and are not inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been made under this Act, as if this Act had been in force on the date on which, such rules were made and shall continue in force unless and until they are superseded by any rules made under this Act. Section - 30A : Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 9 and of subsection (1) of section 16 shall not apply to or in relating to mining leases granted before the 25th day of October, 1949, in respect of coal, but the Central Government, if it is satisfied that is expedient so to do, may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that all or any of the said provisions (including any rules made under sections 13 and 18) shall apply to or in relation to such leases subject to such exceptions and modifications, if any, as may be specified in that or in any subsequent notification. Since the subsisting leases and old tenures would continue and others would be holding on the same tenure the West Bengal amendment as referred to hereinbefore, was invalid. In support of his contentions Mr. Since the subsisting leases and old tenures would continue and others would be holding on the same tenure the West Bengal amendment as referred to hereinbefore, was invalid. In support of his contentions Mr. Barman relied on the case of Baijnath Kedia Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 1436. That was a case under Rule 20 (2) of the Bihar Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 1964 and there were four appeals, which were heard analogously as a common question regarding the validity of proviso (2) to section 10 (2) as added by the Bihar Laud Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 4 of 1965), which is to the following effect : "Section - 10. Subsisting leases of mines and minerals - (1) (2) The terms and conditions of the said lease by the State Government shall mutatis mutandis be the same as the terms and conditions of the subsisting lease referred to in sub section (1), but with the additional condition that, if in the opinion of the State Government the holder of the lease had not. before the date of the commencement of this Act, done any prospecting or development, work, the State Government shall be entitled at any time before the expiry of one year from the said date to determine the lease by giving three months' notice in writing : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent any modifications being made in the terms and conditions of the said lease in accordance with the provisions of any Central Act for the time being in force regulating the modifications of existing mining leases." (3) .................... and the operation of the aforementioned Rules came Up for consideration in the following facts :- One Jyoti Prakash Pandey obtained on March 23, 1955 from Babu Bijan Kumar Pandey and Smt. Anila Devi acting for herself and also as legatee under the will of one Baidyanath Pandey, registered leases to quarry stone ballast, boulders and chips from and upon Blocks Nos. 32, 45/1, 45/2 and 43/3 in touzi No. 1452, Khata No. 1 in Mouza Malpahari No. 89 in Pakur Sub Division of Santhal Parganas. The leases were commenced from November 1, 1954 and to end on October 31, 1984, that is to say, they were for a total period of 30 years. Jyoti Prakash Pandey was working under the name and style of 'Stone India'. The leases were commenced from November 1, 1954 and to end on October 31, 1984, that is to say, they were for a total period of 30 years. Jyoti Prakash Pandey was working under the name and style of 'Stone India'. He sold his rights, title and interest by a registered saledeed on September 9, 1963 to the present appellant. It is admitted that rent under the terms of the original lease was deposited upto September, 1965. On the passing of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) the ex-landlords ceased to have any interest from the date of vesting and in their place the State of Bihar became lessor under S. 10(1) of the Land Reforms Act. After the vesting of the estate of the intermediaries, the State of Bihar as the new lessor recognised the lease for the quarrying of stones for the remaining period and the deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas asked for the rent from the date of vesting to 30 April, 1965 at the rate of Rs. 200 per year as stated in the original lease. This was by a letter issued from his office on February 2, 1963. On December 10, 1964 the appellants received a letter which gives the gist of the facts on which the present controversy starts and the relevant part may be quoted here : "Government have been pleased to amend S. 10 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, according to which the terms and conditions in regard to leases for minor minerals stand statutorily substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions by the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. As a result of this, rent and royalty, etc. in respect of minor minerals in the State irrespective of the date on which the lease was granted are to be paid by all categories of leases according to the rates given in the aforesaid Rules with effect from 27-10-64". The appellants denied their liability to pay. As a result of this, rent and royalty, etc. in respect of minor minerals in the State irrespective of the date on which the lease was granted are to be paid by all categories of leases according to the rates given in the aforesaid Rules with effect from 27-10-64". The appellants denied their liability to pay. The Government informed them by letter as follows : "This is to inform you that the terms and conditions of your mining lease in so far as they are inconsistent with the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, framed by the State Government under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions prescribed by the Bihar Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, from 27. 1. 1964. According, dead to the other royalty and surface rent in addition to the other substitution as per Bihar Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, will be as follows: - 1.? Dead rent Rs.??? 50 per??? acre per annum 2.? Royalty Rs. 3 per 100 cwt. of?? stone???? chips. @ Rs. 2 per 100 cft. of??? stone?? ballast and boulders. @Rs. 4 per 100 cft. on building stores. @ Re.? 1 per 100 Nos.??? of???? stones "setts". Surface rent @ Rs. 10 per acre per year". It is this additional demand and the liability to pay, which is the subject of controversy here. The Bihar Government contends that the terms of the original lease have been validly altered by the operation of the second proviso to S. 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act added first by Ordinance III of 1964 and later incorporated again by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1964 (Act 4 of 1965) and the addition of S. 10A to the Act by the same enactments. The material part of the second section of Act 4 of 1965 is quoted below. Section 10A provided for the vesting of the interest of leases of mines or minerals which were subject to such leases and need not be read here. The State Government also relied upon the Bihar Mineral Concession (First Amendment) Rules 1964 by which a second sub-rule was added to Rule 20. The twentieth rule, purporting to be framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) was amended on December 19, 1964 and now reads : Rule 20. The State Government also relied upon the Bihar Mineral Concession (First Amendment) Rules 1964 by which a second sub-rule was added to Rule 20. The twentieth rule, purporting to be framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) was amended on December 19, 1964 and now reads : Rule 20. (1) Dead rent, royalty and surface rent - When a lease is granted or renewed. (a) Dead rent shall be charged at the rates specified in Schedule I. (b) royalty shall be . charged at the rates specified in Schedule II, and (c) surface rent shall be charged at the rates specified by the Govt. in the Revenue Department from time to time. "On and from the date of commencement of these rules, the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall also apply to leases granted to renewed prior to the date of such commencement and subsisting on such date." "The contention is that the amendment of S. 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is ultra vires the Constitution and that rule 20 (2) does not legally entitled the recovery of the dead-rent, royalty etc., as in the Schedules to the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964." And it has been observed that the said Bihar enactment was void since the jurisdiction to legislate on that point was taken out of the competence of the State Legislature. On the analogy of the aforementioned decision in the Bihar Act, it was argued that the West Bengal amendment was also invalid because the jurisdiction to legislate on the point and matter was abstracted from the State Legislature. Mr. Barman in fact based his submission on legislative competence and not on Article 19 of the Constitution of India and submitted that in view of the above, the determination in the case of Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors. (supra) is distinguishable. 11. THOSE apart, relying on the determinations in the case of The Bihar Mines Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors., A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 887, it was argued that the statutory lease in the instant case would continue as such lease held by the head lessee from the State of West Bengal cannot be interfered with or modified in the manner as was sought to be done. The Union of India and Ors., A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 887, it was argued that the statutory lease in the instant case would continue as such lease held by the head lessee from the State of West Bengal cannot be interfered with or modified in the manner as was sought to be done. It has then submitted that when the head lease could not be modified, the same being an existing mining lease, the sub-leases could not also be modified and they too would be deemed to be new leases planted by the new lessee from the State Government, as the rights of the lessor under the original head lease had ceased on the vesting of the estate and he is deemed to have got a new lease from the State. Mr. Barman then relied on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Khas Karnapura Collieries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., A.I.R. 1971 Patna 328, wherein the vires, true scope and construction of section 30A of the said Mines Act came up for consideration. The petitioners in that case were holders of mining leases : "Circumstances which have led to the filing of these applications may now be briefly set out. Proprietors of Estates, like Raja of Ramgarh and Raja of Jharia, had granted mining leases in respect of coal of large areas of land situate in the district of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad or Singhbhum to different parties. In the permanently settled areas of Bengal and Bihar from which States come about 80% or more of the total coal production of the country, the Zamindars enjoyed an unfettered discretion in regard to granting mining leases for working and extracting different minerals including coal, and, thus no uniformity of policy or practice as to terms of the leases was possible. Yet, generally speaking, the mining leases were for a duration of 999 years, with stipulations as to payment of premiums and a certain royalty either there was no stipulation for any such payment or it was at very low rates. With very few exceptions, the lessees of such mining leases did not work the mines themselves, they invariably granted sub-leases on more or less similar terms. With very few exceptions, the lessees of such mining leases did not work the mines themselves, they invariably granted sub-leases on more or less similar terms. The one common feature in regard to all these mining leases or sub-leases was that they were all of dates earlier to the 25th October 1949, on which date, for the first time, as a result of the coming into operation of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development.) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 made under Section 5 of the said Act, the granting of mining leases and development of minerals were made subject to statutory regulations and restrictions. The Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, as per provisions of Section 5 of the 1948 Act were made for regulating the grant of mining leases or prohibiting the grant of mining leases or prohibiting the grant of such leases in respect of any mineral or in any area, and naturally did not apply to leases granted before the 25th October 1949 - the date on which the 1948 Act as also those Rules had come into operation. The restrictions or provisions in those Rules regarding for instance, areas, duration or rate of royalty payable did not apply to the leases or sub-leases of the petitioners. Even the Rules made in September 1956 under Section 7 of the 1949 Act known as "The Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules 1956" providing for the modification or alteration of the terms and conditions of mining leases granted prior to the commencement of the said Act so as to bring them in conformity with the terms and conditions of mining leases granted after the commencement of the Act in accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules 1949, were expressly made inapplicable to mining leases in respect of coal and certain other minerals specified in Rule 2(c) thereof though similar mining leases in respect of other minerals were covered. The result was that the mining leases or sub-leases of the petitioners remained unaffected by the regulatory or the restrictive provisions of the 1948 Act or of the rules made thereunder. No attempt was made to modify any of the terms or conditions of. the leases or sub-leases. This was the position when the 1957 Act came into operation on the 1st of June 1958. No attempt was made to modify any of the terms or conditions of. the leases or sub-leases. This was the position when the 1957 Act came into operation on the 1st of June 1958. Section 9 (1) of that Act made it obligatory on holders of mining leases in respect of all minerals except mineral oils, granted before the commencement of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at such commencement, to pay royalty at 5% F. O.R. price of coal subject to the minimum of 50 paise per Ton, which was the rate for the time being specified in the second schedule to the said Act. Thus Section 9 (1) served to effect a statutory modification in the rates of royalty payable in respect of mining leases which might have been granted before the 1st June 1958, and thus the mining leases or subleases of the petitioners were automatically and adversely affected. So far as the question of modifying other terms and conditions in respect of mining leases granted before the 25th of October 1949 were concerned so as to bring them in conformity with the terms and conditions of new leases to be granted under the Act in accordance with the rules made under sections 13 and 18 thereof. Section 16(1) of 1957 Act imposed a statutory duty of effecting the necessary modifications as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act. The provisions of Sections 9 (1) and 16 (1) of the 1957 Act. thus amounted to a sudden departure from the policy which was being followed by the Government in regard to mining leases in respect of coal. The case of the petitioners is that on account of the proposed sudden increase in the rate of royalty over the rates hitherto payable or being paid, a steep rise in the cost of production of coal was apprehended. Like wise the almost immediate certainty of other terms and conditions being modified, thus bringing in all the restrictive and regulatory provisions in regard to duration and area, was also likely to have an unsettling effect on the working of the coal industry as a whole. Like wise the almost immediate certainty of other terms and conditions being modified, thus bringing in all the restrictive and regulatory provisions in regard to duration and area, was also likely to have an unsettling effect on the working of the coal industry as a whole. In such circumstances, according to the petitioners, representations were made to the Government of India to reconsider the whole matter and take some steps for pre venting the aforesaid adverse effect on the production of coal, a vital and basic material for the industrial development of the country. The representations, according to the petitioners, had their effect and Section 30A of the 1957 Act was brought in by Section 2 of the Amendment Act which inserted Section 30A expressly stated that Section 30A shall be deemed always to have been inserted. In the re suit by virtue of Section 30A, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 9 and sub-section (1) of Section 16 were to remain in applicable to or in relation to mining leases in respect of coal granted before the 25th day of October 1949 until the Central Government was satisfied that it was expedient to make them applicable to those leases with such exceptions and modifications, by notification in the official Gazette. The provisions of Sections 9 (1) and 16 (1) having been thus suspended so far as mining leases in respect of coal were concerned, the petitioners went on paying royalty, if any, at the contractual rates. Finally, however, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred. by Section 30A issued a notification dated the 29th December 1961, directing that the provisions of Section 9 (1) relating to mining leases in respect of coal granted before the 25th October 1949 subject to this modification that the lessees concerned shall pay royalty at the rates specified in any agreement between the lessee and the lessor) or at 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal whichever was higher in lieu of the 5% F.O.R, price of coal which was the rate specified in respect of coal in the second schedule to the 1957 Act. The petitioners thereupon began to pay royalty at the rate of 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal from the 29th December 1961 onwards in place of rate of royalty mentioned in the instrument of lease or sub-lease. The petitioners thereupon began to pay royalty at the rate of 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal from the 29th December 1961 onwards in place of rate of royalty mentioned in the instrument of lease or sub-lease. In case of sub lessees though there was no privity of contract or privity of Estate with respondent No. 1, the State of Bihar and as such they had no liability to pay any royalty to the State direct, yet in many cases, either on account of arrangement between the lessee and the sub-lessee or on account of duress or coercion, payments at 2 1/2% F.O.R. Price of coal was made directly to the State. In any case, after the introduction of Section 10A by Section 3 of the Bihar Act 4 of 1965 into the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, all sub-lessees whose leases were not subject to further sub leases came to hold their leases directly under the State Government and the payment of royalty at the rate specified in the notification of the Central Government dated the 29th December, 1961, referred to above, continued until by another notification dated the 1st of January 1966, the previous notification dated the 29th December 1961 was superseded and the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the 1957 Act without any modification became applicable with immediate effect to and in relation to mining leases in respect of coal granted before the 25th October 1949. It is the common case of the parties that from the 1st January 1966 onwards the petitioners have been paying royalty at the rate of 5% F.O.R. price of coal as specified in the second schedule to the 1957 Act. It is the common case of the parties that from the 1st January 1966 onwards the petitioners have been paying royalty at the rate of 5% F.O.R. price of coal as specified in the second schedule to the 1957 Act. Respondent No. 2, District Mining Officer, has, notwithstanding the fact that royalty at the uniform rate of 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal in respect of coal removed from the leased area during the period 29th December 1961 to 31st December 1965, has already been paid by the petitioners, as per notification dated the 29th December 1961 issued by the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Section 30A of the 1957 Act, demanded further payment of different sums of money from different petitioners by way of royalty calculated at the rate of 5% F.O.R. price of coal, in respect of the period from the 3rd November 1951 till the 31st December 1965 in some oases, and from the 29th December 1961 to the 31st December, 1965 in other cases. This demand according to the petitioners, was wholly illegal and when their protests and representations to the respondents against the illegal demand have proved futile, and, indeed, the respondents had in the case of some of the petitioners initiated certificate proceedings for realisation of the aforesaid illegal demand and have been holding out threats of adopting coercive measures in other cases for realisation of the sums of money demanded by way of royalty, the present applications were filed for the reliefs already specified above. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to demand or realise royalty at 5% F.O.R. price of coal for any period prior to the 1st January 1966 because for the period between the 3rd November 1951-the date on which the estates of the head lessors are alleged to have vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, and the 1st of June 1958 - the date on which the 1957 Act was brought into operation, Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 requiring royalty to be paid at the rate specified in the first schedule to those rules applied to leases granted under those Rules after the commencement of the 1948 Act and the Mineral Concession Rules themselves, and, as such had no application to the petitioners' leases or sub-leases, and so far as the claim or demand for the period between the 1st June 1958 and the 28th December 1961 was concerned, royalty at the contractual rates alone was payable, because, firstly, the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the 1957 Act did not cover and had no application to statutory leases deemed to have come into existence under Section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, and alternative because by virtue of Section 30A of tire 1957 Act which must be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st of June 1958 itself, the provisions of Section 9 (1) was not applicable to or in relation to the mi0ning leases in respect of coal granted before the 21st day of October 1949 until the Central Government by notification had decided otherwise. So far as the claim in respect of the period 29th December 1961 to the 31st December 1965 was concerned the case of the petitioners is that royalty at 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal for the said period has already been paid by the petitioners as per notification of the Central Government issued in exercise of their powers under Section 30A of the 1957 Act, and the State having itself invited and accepted those payments in full discharge of the petitioners' liability on the score of royalty payable during the said period, was not entitled to unilaterally revoke the aforesaid discharge or satisfaction and claim further royalty at 2 1/2% F.O.R. price of coal over and above what has already been paid and accepted." 12. ON the pleadings of the parties, the questions that arose for determination were: (i) in regard to the vires or otherwise of the provisions of Section 30A of the 1957 Act and (ii) in regard to the proper construction true effect and scape of Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 and Sections 9 and 30A of the 1957 Act. In respect of the claim for the period prior to the 1st June 1958, the applicability of the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 by virtue of Section 29 of the 1957 Acts or otherwise to or in respect of the petitioners' leases or sub-leases will be another relevant question, which will arise for determination. In respect of the claim for the period prior to the 1st June 1958, the applicability of the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 by virtue of Section 29 of the 1957 Acts or otherwise to or in respect of the petitioners' leases or sub-leases will be another relevant question, which will arise for determination. And it has been observed that: "(i) Section 30A was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Claim for royalty for the period prior to the coming into force of the 1957 Act was not justified or legal on the basis of Section 29 of the 1957 Act read with Rule 41 of the First Schedule to the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949; (iii) Section 9 (1) was comprehensive in terms and included statutory mining leases deemed to have been granted by the State in favour of the petitioners under Section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and (iv) ON a proper construction of Section 30A, statutory mining leases deemed to have been granted by the State under Section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 were covered by the words in relation to the mining leases granted before the 25th day of October, 1949 in respect of coal and even otherwise those statutory mining leases enjoyed the protection of Section 30A, and, therefore, the demand for royalty from the petitioners at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act read with Section 9 (1) of the said Act for any period prior to the 31st of December, 1965, except as under the relevant notification issued under Section 30A on the 28th December, 1961, was illegal and unwarranted." In support of his arguments on the legislative competence, in view of the provisions of Article 31, Mr. Barman relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Chanan Mal Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., A. I. R. 1975 PandH. 102 and submitted that on the basis of the determination made therein the determination in the case of Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors., (supra) is also distinguishable. Barman relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Chanan Mal Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., A. I. R. 1975 PandH. 102 and submitted that on the basis of the determination made therein the determination in the case of Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors., (supra) is also distinguishable. In that Punjab ease, the petitioners, who were either owners of lessees of Saltpetre at various places in the State of Haryana, challenged the validity of the Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, principally on the ground that the State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact that law. The Act received the assent of the President on December 16, 1973 and was published in the relevant Gazette on December 20, 1973 and came into force on that date. The preamble of the Act shows that the same was enacted to vest the Mineral rights in the State Government and to provide for payment of amounts to the owners of Minerals for other matters connected therewith. In that case it has been held that : "In view of the declaration made under Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (1957), as contemplated by Entry 54 of List 1 of Schedule 7 to the Constitution, read with other provisions of that Act it is clear that the entire field of regulation of Mines and Minerals Development, which includes the acquisition of minerals, is taken over by the Union. Hence the Haryana State Legislature had no competence to pass the Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973. The pith and substance of the Haryana Act being the acquisition of rights to minerals and development thereof the Act falls within Entry 23 of State List and not Entry 18 of that List although it incidentally touches land. Hence in view of the Central Act, Entry 18 is of no help to save the Act from invalidity. The contention that the Haryana Act came under Article 31-A (1) (a) of the Constitution and hence was not open to attack on the basis of Article 31 is not sound because the Act is not relatable to Entry 18 of the State List and Article 31-A (1) (a) is also not applicable. Article 31-A (1) (a) relates to agrarian reforms and not to Mines and Minerals or rights thereto. Article 31-A (1) (a) relates to agrarian reforms and not to Mines and Minerals or rights thereto. That matter is covered by Article 31-A (1) (a). But here again the acquisition can be for the purpose of searching for or winning any mineral and not mineral development. Hence the Haryana Act cannot be saved under Article 31-A (1) (a) or (e) particularly in the face of the Central Act. The Act cannot however, be successfully challenged on the ground that there was no public purpose for acquisition for looked at as a whole, the acquisition of. rights to minerals was made for a public purpose. The amount payable to the owners of the minerals under Section 4 of the Haryana Act is not merely inadequate but illusory and arbitrarily fixed. Section 4 is thus violative of Article 31(20 and hence the entire Act has to be struck down on that ground also, A. I. R. 1973 SC 1461, followed." 13. APART from arguing on the points of interest and price for fuel coal as recorded hereinbefore and, arguing that the interpretation as given to the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Burdwan Division (supra), was incorrect, Mr. Barman advanced his arguments on promisory estoppel stating that when in terms of the lease at the instance of the State as mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioners have made investments and that too on the basis of their promise and assurance and ho their prejudice, the rights as granted cannot be taken away or refused in the manner as was sought to be done or at all and in support of his contentions, he relied on the case of The Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 718. 14. IN the case of Sub-divisional land Reforms Officer and Ors., Vs. Ukhara Forest and Fisheries Ltd., 81 C. W. N. 361, which was a case of vesting of forest and forest lands, a point arose whether without a fresh notification under Section 4 of the said Act, such lands could vest in the State and on consideration of the determinations in the cases of Ajit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal, 61 C.W.N. 576, Bhuthnath Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, 62 C.W.N. 610, Katrash Jharia Coal Co. Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) Ramkissen Vs. State of West Bengal, 61 C.W.N. 576, Bhuthnath Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, 62 C.W.N. 610, Katrash Jharia Coal Co. Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) Ramkissen Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, A.I.R. 1965 S. C. 625 and Walamji Vs. Chandra Bhusan, 78 C.W.N. 735, it has been held that in the absence of a fresh notification under section 4, after the insertion of sub-clause (aa) in section 5 (1) of the said Act, the forest lands did not vest in the State. Such determination was made as it was observed that section 4 as it stood at the relevant time required a notification, by which all estates and rights of intermediaries under the said Act could vest. On the basis of such reasons, I hold that Mr. Barman is justified in his submissions that the underground rights of the lessees and sublessees could not vest in the State in the absence of a fresh notification and as such the claim of royalty on that basis should also be held to be improper. Thus it must also be held that since rights as aforesaid were not vested in terms of the required notification under the section, which was dated April 15, 1955, rights of lessees were not affected, although the definition was amended by the ordinance dated February 16, 1957 and the said Act which was passed on February 12, 1954, was further and suitably amended on March 9, 1957 by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1957 (Act 4 of 1957), which was published in the Extraordinary issues of Calcutta Gazette dated March a, 1957. I further hold that section 4 contemplated a notification by which all estates and rights of intermediaries under the Act at the relevant time could vest in the State with effect from April 15, 1955 and the relevant notification being dated August 26, 1954 and chapter VI of the said Act, which deals with "Acquisition of INterest of Raiyats and under Raiyats" as introduced by Act XXV of 1955 and was enforced by a fresh notification under section 4, which was dated April 10, 1956, the said Mines Act which came into force on December 12, 1957 and that too having been made operative from June 1, 1958, the interest in the instant case could not also vest. IN view of the provisions in sections 29 and 30A of the said Mines Act and since they maintain the subsisting leases and old tenures to be continued, the West Bengal amendment was invalid. In the case of Baijnath Kedia Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra), the Bihar enactment has been held to be void since the jurisdiction to legislate on that point was taken out of the competence of the State Legislature. Applying the tests as enunciated in that case which applies with equal force in this case, I hold that the West Bengal enactment was void since the jurisdiction to legislate on that point was taken out of the competence of the State legislature and as such also the West Bengal amendment was invalid. That apart on a reference to the determination in the case of Charan Mal Vs. The State of Haryana and Anr. (supra) it must be held that in view of the declaration made under the said Act as contemplated by Entry 54 of list 1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution read with other provisions of the Estates Acquisition Act it is clear that the entire field of regulation of Mines and Mineral Development, which includes the acquisition of minerals, has been taken over by the Union and as such also the State Legislature had no competence in the matter. 15. I further hold that in view of the observations in the case of The Bihar Mines Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors., (Supra), the statutory lease in the instant case would continue and as such the lease held by the head lessee from the State cannot be interfered with or modified. Thus I hold that when the head lease cannot be modified, the same being an existing mining lease, the sub-leases could not also be modified and the same should also be deemed to be a new lease from the State Government, as the rights of the lessor under the original head lease had ceased on the vesting of the estate and such lessee should be deemed to have got a new lease from the State. The provisions in sections 29 and 30A of the said Act and the effect thereof, have been considered in the cases of Khas Karnapura Collieries Ltd. and Ors. The provisions in sections 29 and 30A of the said Act and the effect thereof, have been considered in the cases of Khas Karnapura Collieries Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (Supra) and Dhemo Main Collieries and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors., (Supra) and it has been observed in the aforementioned Full Bench determination of the Patna High Court, that the said section 30A is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the claim for royalty for the period prior to the coming into force of the 1957 Act was not justified or legal on the basis of section 29 of the said Mines Act read with Rule 41 of the First Schedule to the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, section 9 (1) of the Bihar Act was comprehensive in terms and included statutory mining leases deemed to have been granted by the State in favour of the petitioner therein under section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and on a proper construction of section 30A, statutory mining leases deemed to have been granted by the State under section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, were covered by the words in relation to the mining leases granted before the 25th day of October 1949 in respect of Coal and even otherwise those statutory mining leases enjoyed the protection of section 30A, and therefore, the demand for royalty from the petitioners at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act read with section 9 (1) of the Bihar Act for any period prior to the 31st of December 1965, except as under the relevant notification under section 30A on the 28th December 1961, was illegal and unwarranted. 16. IN the case of Dhemo Main Collieries INdustries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Ors. (Supra) it has been observed that since the petitioner was not a proprietor; its right to work mines and minerals was derived from leases granted by proprietors and in some cases by sub-leases granted by lessees. Section 29 of the Estates Acquisition Act, therefore would be attracted in terms to the case of the petitioner and on the elimination of all intermediate grades of leases and sub-leases, direct relationship would be established between the State on the one hand and the petitioner on the other which was actually undertaking mining operations. Section 29 of the Estates Acquisition Act, therefore would be attracted in terms to the case of the petitioner and on the elimination of all intermediate grades of leases and sub-leases, direct relationship would be established between the State on the one hand and the petitioner on the other which was actually undertaking mining operations. The petitioner would be liable to pay royalty in respect of the mines worked by it to the State with effect from the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1951 came into force. It has also been observed in that case that under section 29 of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1951, fresh leases must be deemed to have been granted in favour of the working lessees with effect from the date of vesting; although the terms and conditions of such leases were the same as those of the leases granted by the intermediaries and subsisting on the date of vesting, the original leases granted prior to the 25th October, 1949, did not subsist, and the expression in relation to mining leases granted before the 25 day of October 1949, in section 30A of the said Mines Act, has been widely formulated and mining leases contemplated by the section would include statutory leases deemed to have been granted with effect from the date of vesting. So the petitioner in that case was held to be liable to pay royalty at the contractual rate till December 1, 1962 from which date it will be liable to pay royalty at the rates specified in the notifications published under section 30A of the said Mines Act. IN that case it has further been observed that the West Bengal Legislature was competent under Entry No. 18 of List II in Schedule VII of the Constitution to enact laws in respect of every kind of rights in lands both surface and underground, including mineral leases granted by intermediaries and their lessees, and List II confers legislative competence to the State legislature to regulate mines and mineral development, but such competence would be taken away when Parliament by law makes a declaration in terms of Entry No. 54 of List I only to the extent of the declaration, IN respect of matters not covered by the declaration, the State legislature would continue to enjoy legislative competence. It has also been observed that the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1951 does not, in pith and substance, relate to regulation of mines and minerals development within the meaning of Entry No. 23 of List II or Entry No. 54 of List I. Merely because the said Act may incidentally affect mining rights, the same does not involve any repugnancy between the said Act and any Central statute for regulating mines and mineral development and the retrospective amendment of the term 'intermediary' in section 2 (i) of Amending Act, 1957, made before the said Mines Act was within the legislative competence of the West Bengal State Legislature. It has also been observed in that case that Section 5(2) of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1951 as inserted by the Estates Acquisition Amendment Act of 1964, is not repugnant to any provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and is not ultra vires and the amendment was expressly given retrospective operation and would be deemed to have been on the statute book from the date of commencement of the original Act. Consequently the interests of all intermediaries, being lessees and sub-lessees of mineral rights, did vest in the State on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. IN view of my findings as above and more particularly following the determination in the cases as mentioned hereinbefore the State Legislature, in the instant case had no competence to legislate on the point involved. The Supreme Court in the case of Sona Valley Portland Cement Company Limited v. General Mining Syndicate Private Ltd., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2520 which was a case under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has observed that a head lessee in respect of mines and minerals under an indenture of lease executed prior to the date of vesting of mines under the said Bihar Act does not become a tenure holder consequent on "vesting" under the Act. It has also been observed that such head lessee cannot be said to be a tenure holder as contemplated by section 2 (r) of the said Bihar Act as he had neither acquired from the lessee by virtue of the lease a right to hold the land mentioned herein for the purpose of collecting rent nor a right to hold the land for bringing it under cultivation by establishing tenants on it. His right as a head lessee of the mines and minerals also do not cease and he does not acquire the status of the lessee. Inspite of the said determination also it applies with equal force in the instant case and as such on the basis of such determination it can be held that the rights of the petitioner in the instant case has not. also vested when the rights of the head lessee have not vested. 17. THOSE apart, when there is categorical evidence that on the assurances as received by them, the petitioner had invested large sums of money and have acted to their detriment and prejudice on such promise, their case would come under the purview of the determination in the case of The Union of India v. Messrs Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. (Supra) and as such the action as proposed was irregular. 18. IN view of the above, the necessary consequential result is that the State Government in the instant case was not entitled to claim royalty or interest from the petitioner. In view of the above findings, the argument of Mr. Barman succeeds and as such so also the application. The Rule is thus made absolute. There will be no order for costs. The operation of the order is stayed for eight weeks. The order as proposed will not however prejudice the rights of the Respondents to proceed afresh and in accordance with law in the matter of realisation of royalty. Rule made absolute.