B. N. KIRPAL ( 1 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners, who were, inter alia, carrying on the business as Raising Contractors in a coal mine, is that notwithstanding their assets having been acquired by the Government as a result of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Nationalisation Act), no provision has been made for the payment of any amount or compensation to them under the said Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were carrying on business as Raising Contractors and selling agents of coking coal and as manufacturer of hard coke. According to the petitioners, by letter dated 1st July, 1961 M/s. Jardine Handerson Ltd. , who were managing agents of East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 5 in the present petition), which owned the Kendwadih Colliery (hereinafter referred to as the said colliery ) in the State of Bihar, appointed the petitioner-Company as contractor to raise and sell coal and manufacture hard coke in respect of the unworked coal seam in the remaining portion of Seam No. 10 of the said colliery. The said seam comprised of an area of 373. 73 bighas and this agreement was for a period of 20 years commencing from 1st July, 1961. The petitioners state that by this letter they were entrusted with the work of raising, winning, digging and quarrying coking coal from the said seam and to manufacture hard coke and to sell coal and hard coke on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. It is further alleged that the petitioner was entitled to instal plant, machinery and other equipment for efficient discharge of its functions as Raising Contractor and manufacturer of hard coke. It is contended that such plants, machinery, utensils and coke ovens brought in and installed at the said seam were to be and remained the exclusive property of the petitioner-Company and the agreement between the parties further provided that if there was an earlier termination of the contract for reasons beyond anyone s ontrol, such as nationalisation, respondent No. 5 would, in such an event, compensate the petitioner-Company for the loss which it sustains provided respondent No. 5 is in turn compensated or receives compensation. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to go into the further details of the said letter of appointment except to note that it is also the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid agreement the petitioners from time to time purchased and took to the site and fixed plant, machinery and other furniture and fittings at Seam No. 10 of the said colliery. ( 3 ) BY another letter of appointment doted 15th June, 1968 respondent No. 5 appointed the petitioner-Company as Raising Con- tractor in respect of two other seams, namely, Seam No. 11 and Seam No. 12 of the said colliery. The terms of this agreement were more or less similar to the terms of the earlier agreement dated 1st July, 1961. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the letter dated 15th June, 1968 the petitioner- Company worked the said two additional seams from time to time and also manufactured coke by installing coke ovens. ( 4 ) THE petitioners allege that as Raising Contractors in respect of the said three seams they had invested Rs. 27,54,404. 00 by installing fixed assets like plant and machinery and coke ovens. According to the petitioners, in terms of the aforesaid agreement the petitioner-Company had set up, at a cost of Rs. 3,10,000. 00 a battery of hard coke ovens which had been running and manufacturing hard coke and they also allege to have put up buildings at the cost of Rupees 1,92,754. 00. ( 5 ) BY an Ordinance promulgated under Art. 123 of the Constitution, which was subsequently replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, the management of collieries, including the colliery in question with regard to which the petitioners had been appointed as Raising Contractors, was taken over by the Union of India with effect from 17th Oct. , 1971. In terms of this Act the management continued to be under the authority of the Government till 30th April, 1972 when, by virtue of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the said mines vested in the Government with effect from 1st May, 1972. As the Nationalisation Act received the assent of the President on 17th Aug. , 1972 provision was made for paying an amount for taking over the management up to 16th Aug. , 1972 in terms of S. 12 (1) of the Nationalisation Act. As the Nationalisation Act received the assent of the President on 17th Aug. , 1972 provision was made for paying an amount for taking over the management up to 16th Aug. , 1972 in terms of S. 12 (1) of the Nationalisation Act. The Nationalisation Act also made provision for the payment of an amount specified in the first schedule thereto to the owner for the vesting of the ownership rights in the Central Government. The payment was to be made by the Commissioner appointed under the Act. The Act further provides the procedure which has to be followed in obtaining the payments from the Commissioner. ( 6 ) AFTER the promulgation of the Nationalisation Act, the petitioner-Company attempted to challenge the validity of the same. It filed a writ petition being Civil Writ No. 374 of 1972 in the Supreme Court of India. The Act in question had been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners in view of the law as it stood at that time, the Act could not be challenged and the petitioners had no alternative but to withdraw the petition, which it did on 5th April, 1976. It may be noted here that at that time enforcement of fundamental rights stood suspended. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioners also filed claims for compensation before the Commissioner under the Nationalisation Act. The case of the petitioners, inter alia, was that they were also the owners in relation to the colliery in question and, out of the sum which was awarded to be paid in respect of the Nationalisation of the colliery in question, the petitioner-Company should also get its share. It may here be noted that by the Nationalisation Act all the collieries of which respondent No. 5 was stated to be the owner/lessee were nationalised. The petitioner- Company was working on only one of the mines, namely. Seam Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in Kendwadih Colliery whereas respondent No. 5 was the owner/lessee of 5 mines, including Kendwadih Colliery. By the Nationalisation Act all these five mines were nationalised and a consolidated amount of Rs. 93,28,500. 00 was stated to be payable in respect thereof. The petitioner-Company is claiming a portion out of the said amount which has been awarded. According to the petitioner the value of its assets etc. By the Nationalisation Act all these five mines were nationalised and a consolidated amount of Rs. 93,28,500. 00 was stated to be payable in respect thereof. The petitioner-Company is claiming a portion out of the said amount which has been awarded. According to the petitioner the value of its assets etc. which have been taken over by the Government, as a result of the Nationalisation Act, was about rupees forty five lacs. ( 8 ) THE petitioners filed a claim for payment of compensation. This claim was filed by them under the provisions of the Nationalisation Act. The claim of the petitioners was for a sum of rupees forty five lacs. This claim was denied by respondent No. 5. One of the disputes which arose was whether a raising contractor could be regarded as an owner who would be entitled to a share in the amount awarded on the nationalisation of the colliery. ( 9 ) WHILE the claim of the petitioners was still pending adjudication before the Commissioner, the present writ petition had been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The main contention of the petitioners is that in view of the decision of theSupreme Court in Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 341 : ( AIR 1980 SC 1858 ) a raising contractor is also an owner within the meaning of the Nationalisation Act. The contention is that, being an owner, the petitioner-Company is entitled to a share in the amount awarded. It is further submitted that if it is held that the petitioner-Company is not entitled to any share in the compensation then the Nationalisation Act will be violative of Art. 31 of the Constitution as the petitioner-Company had been deprived of its assets, namely, building, machinery, plant, equipment etc. without payment of any amount or compensation. It is also submitted by the petitioners that if it be held that the petitioner-Company is entitled to share in the compensation or in the amount which has been awarded, then the Commissioner is not entitled to deduct from out of the compensation payable to the petitioner-Company the liability which has been incurred by respondent No. 5. In other words the submission is that the liability is to be deducted from that owner who has incurred the debt and the same cannot be fastened on another owner. In other words the submission is that the liability is to be deducted from that owner who has incurred the debt and the same cannot be fastened on another owner. It is also contended that the amount of compensation which has been awarded does not include therein the value of the coke ovens which have been taken over and appropriate direction should be issued asking respondent No. 1 to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners in respect thereof. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 in their affidavit in reply have submitted that there is an alternative remedy open to the petitioners which they have already availed of, namely by putting forth the claim before the Commissioner under the Nationalisation Act. It is submitted by the said respondents that this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction at all but more so because the Commissioner has not yet adjudicated upon the claim of the petitioners. On merits, however, it has been stated by respondents 1 to 3 that the amount shown as being payable under the Nationalisation Act has been arrived at after taking into consideration "the assets and equipment of the petitioners". The said respondents have clearly admitted that the plant, equipment, machinery etc. , which is claimed by the petitioners to be belonging to them, have been taken over under the Nationalisation Act. Respondent No. 5, however, in its return has, while admitting the existence of the two agreements dated 1st July, 1961 and 15th June, 1968, denied that any amount is payable to the petitioners. It is further denied that the petitioners can be regarded as owners and it has also been denied that the petitioners own any part of the plant, machinery or equipment which have been taken over under the Nationalisation Act. ( 11 ) BEFORE considering the rival contentions of the parties, we may, at this stage, refer to the relevant provisions of the Nationalisation Act. Section 4 of the said Act provides for the acquisition of rights in coking coal mines. Section 4 (1), which is relevant, reads as under: "4. (1) On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government, free from all incumbrances. Section 4 (1), which is relevant, reads as under: "4. (1) On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government, free from all incumbrances. "section 5 refer to the acquisition of rights of owners of coke oven plants. The said section reads as under: "5. On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners of each of the coke oven plants specified in the Second Schedule, being the coke oven plants which are situated in or about the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule, shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government, free from all incurnbrances. "both Sections 4 and 5 talk of the right, title and interest of the owners being vested in the Central Government. The term "owner" has been defined by S. 3 (n ). The same reads as under : "3 (n ). "owner" (i) when used in relation to a mine, has the meaning assigned to it in the Mines Act, 1952, (ii) when used in relation to a coke oven plant, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the coke oven plant or any part thereof or is a contractor for the working of the coke oven plant or any part thereof. "payment of amount to owners of coking coal mines is provided by S. 10. The same reads as under: "10. The owner of every coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines specified in the second column of the First Schedule. shall be given by the Central Government, in cash and in the manner specified in Section 21, for vesting in it, under Sec. 4. the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to such coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines, an amount equal to the amount specified against it in the corresponding entry in the fifth column of the said Schedule. "the collieries owned by respondent No. 5 are specified at Serial Nos. 112 to 116 of the First Schedule to the Nationalisation Act. "the collieries owned by respondent No. 5 are specified at Serial Nos. 112 to 116 of the First Schedule to the Nationalisation Act. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows :- ( 12 ) THE amount which is referred to in the 5th column of the First Schedule which is required to be paid on the nationalisation is, under the provisions of Ss. 20 and 21 of the Act, put at the disposal of the Commissioner of Payments by the Central Government. Section 23 provides that every person who has a claim against the owner may prefer the same before the Commissioner within the stipulated period. Sub-section (2) of S. 23, inter alia, provides for some types of debts to be paid out of the amount payable to the owner, in priority to all other unsecured debts. Such payments which have a priority are in the nature of wages and salary, amounts due towards contribution payable under the Provident Fund Act etc. , amounts due under the Workmen Compensation Act, amounts due to employees from the provident fund, pension, gratuity etc. and sums due to the State Governments as royalty, rent or dead rent. Sub-section (3) provides that the aforesaid amounts payable under sub-section (2) shall rank equally amongst themselves and be paid in full and, if the assets are not sufficient, the balance amount payable shall abate. Procedure for entertaining any hearing of the claims against the owner is prescribed by sub-sections (4) to (9) of S. 23. The same, inter alia, provide for a hearing being given to the claimant as well as the owner before the Commissioner decides to admit or reject the claim in whole or in part. The decision of the Commissioner, admittingor rejecting the claim in whole or in part, can be appealed against, the appellate Court being the Principal Civil Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction within whose local limits the relevant mine was situate. Section 24, inter alia, provides that where the total amount of claim admitted by the Commissioner does not exceed the amount of money payable to the owner under the Act then the amount of admitted claim shall be paid in full and the balance remaining shall be paid to the owner. Section 24, inter alia, provides that where the total amount of claim admitted by the Commissioner does not exceed the amount of money payable to the owner under the Act then the amount of admitted claim shall be paid in full and the balance remaining shall be paid to the owner. Where, however, the amount payable to the owner is insufficient to meet the full and total demand of the admitted claim then every such claim is to abate in equal proportion and shall be paid accordingly. Under Section 25 the amounts which have been advanced by the Central Government for the management of the mine can be recovered either out of the income derived by the mine, in the period during which the same remained under the management of the Central Government till the ownership vested in it, or if the amount advanced is not so recovered then the section provides for the Central Government to make a claim before the Commissioner, and such a claim is to have priority over the claim of all other unsecured creditors of the mine. ( 13 ) WHEREAS Sec. 23 of the Act refers to claims being made against the owner, S. 26, on the other hand, deals with cases where doubt or dispute arises as to the right of the person who is entitled to receive the compensation. The said section reads as follows : "26. (1) In the event of there being a doubt or dispute as to the right of a person to receive the whole or any part of the amount referred to in Ss. 10, 11 and 12, the Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Court for a decision, and shall make the disbursements in accordance with the decision of the Court. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation. In this section, "court", in relation to a coking coal mine or coke oven plant, means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the coking coal mine or coke oven plant is situated. " ( 14 ) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the case, we may first discuss the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 5. " ( 14 ) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the case, we may first discuss the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 5. It was contended at the time of hearing that the petitioners have already availed of an alternative remedy open to them, namely, preferring a claim before the Commissioner of Payments, and as such this Court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily when alternative remedy, provided under an Act, has been availed of then as a matter of restraint a Writ Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction. Where, however, questions are raised which cannot be adjudicated upon by the authorities constituted under the Act then, under such circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that alternative remedy has been availed of the petitioners would be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the present case respondent No. 5 had, before the Commissioner, denied the right of the petitioners to receive any amount of compensation or payment in lieu of the plant, machinery etc. allegedly owned by the petitioners which is stated to have been taken over by the Central Government. One of the contentions was that the First Schedule does not provide for any payment to be made to a raising contractor like the petitioner-Company. In other words, the petitioner-Company was not being regarded as an owner who was entitled to receive any compensation under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioners accordingly were left with no alternative but to challenge the validity of the Act itself. It is now well settled that the validity of an Act cannot be challenged before an authority constituted under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, could not have challenged the validity of the Nationalisation Act before the Commissioner of Payments and, as such, the only course open to the petitioners was to file the present writ petition. We, therefore, see no force in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 5. ( 15 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that if it be held that petitioner-Company is an owner who is entitled to receive the amount under S. 10 then it will not be necessary for the petitioner-Company to challenge the validity of the Act. ( 15 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that if it be held that petitioner-Company is an owner who is entitled to receive the amount under S. 10 then it will not be necessary for the petitioner-Company to challenge the validity of the Act. According to the petitioners, on a correct interpretation of the Act, and Sec. 3 (n) in particular, the petitioner-Company has to be regarded as an owner who is entitled to have a share in the amount payable under col. 5 of the First Schedule to the Act. There is force in this contention. Section 3 (n) provides that word "owner" in relation to a mine, would have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Mines Act, 1952. Section 2 (1) (1) of the Mines Act, 1952 reads as follows: "2 (1) (1 ). "owner", when used in relation to a mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a mine the business whereof is being carried on by a Liquidator or Receiver such Liquidator or Receiver and in the case of a mine owned by a company, the business whereof is being carried on by a managing agent, such managing agent; but does not include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the mine, or is merely the proprietor of the mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine; but any contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an owner, but not so as to exempt the owner from any liability. " (Emphasis added.) Admittedly the petitioner-Company was a raising contractor. It was, therefore, in occupation of at least a part of the mine and as such it has to be regarded as an owner. This question is, in fact, no longer res integra. The question as to whether a raising contractor of a coal mine could be regarded as an owner within the meaning of Ss. It was, therefore, in occupation of at least a part of the mine and as such it has to be regarded as an owner. This question is, in fact, no longer res integra. The question as to whether a raising contractor of a coal mine could be regarded as an owner within the meaning of Ss. 4 and 10 of the Nationalisation Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Supplies ( AIR 1980 SC 1858 ) (supra ). In this decision it was held that, if a raising contractor, under the terms of an agreement, was entitled to, and was in fact in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the colliery, then it would be regarded as an owner. In the present casealso the two agreements in question do entitle the petitioner-Company to obtain actual physical possession of the three seams, namely, Seam Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and it was in actual physical possession thereof. It must, therefore, follow, applying the dictum of the Supreme Court in Industrial Suppliers case, that the petitioner-Company was also an owner of the mine. ( 16 ) IT is, however, contended on behalf of the respondents that even though the petitioners may be regarded as owner, nevertheless the First Schedule to the Act does not contemplate the payment of any amount to the petitioners. It is submitted that in the said Schedule in col. 4 the name and address of the owners is given and that is of respondent No. 5. We are unable to agree with this submission. Under Sec. 10 of the Act it is, inter alia, provided that to an owner of the coal mine, which mine is specified in col. 2 of the First Schedule, cash is payable to the extent mentioned in col. 5. The right of an owner to receive the amount is conferred by Section 10. It is true that in Col. 4 of the First Schedule respondent No. 5 has been described as the owner of the mine. Section 10 does not state that the amount stipulated in col. 5 of the Schedule is to be paid to the owner specified in col. 4 thereof. If the intention of the Legislature was that the amount specified in col. 4 of the First Schedule respondent No. 5 has been described as the owner of the mine. Section 10 does not state that the amount stipulated in col. 5 of the Schedule is to be paid to the owner specified in col. 4 thereof. If the intention of the Legislature was that the amount specified in col. 5 was to be payable only to the owner mentioned in the First Schedule then Sec. 10 would have been differently worded. In such a case it would have been provided that the amount of cash payable on nationalisation would be paid to the owner specified in col. 4. The Legislature advisedly did not do so. It was conscious of the fact that in respect of some mines there may be more owners than one, each of whom would be entitled to receive a part of the amount payable under the First Schedule. The Legislature therefore, deliberately provided in S. 10 that the amount will be paid to the owner and did not state that the amount will be paid to the owner as specified in col. 4. The fact that the Legislature was conscious that in some cases more persons than one may be having a right to get compensation is also evident from the insertion of S. 26. The said section clearly contemplates persons other than the one specified in col. 4 of the First Schedule having a right or a claim to the amount in dispute. If money was only payable to the person specified in 4th column, then it would not have been necessary for Sec. 26 to be enacted, as there would then be no possibility of any doubt or dispute arising. The right of the petitioner-Company to get a share of the amounts as an owner cannot, therefore, be taken away by its name not being included in col. 4 of the First Schedule. ( 17 ) THE next grievance of the petitioners is that out of the amount which is payable to them the claims admitted by the Commissioner under Sec. 23 cannot be deducted. The submission is that there are huge claims against respondent No. 5 and the share which should be apportioned to the petitioners is to be out of the gross amount specified in col. The submission is that there are huge claims against respondent No. 5 and the share which should be apportioned to the petitioners is to be out of the gross amount specified in col. 5 of the First Schedule and not out of the net amount which may become payable after deducting from the said gross amount the claims payable inder Section 23. In this connection it is further contended that the provisions of S. 25-A would not be applicable to the petitioner. Section 25-A reads as under : "25-A. Notice to owners of coking coal mines or coke oven plants and managing contractors, etc. (1) After meeting the liabilities of persons whose claims have been admitted under this Act, the Commissioner shall notify, in such manner as he may think fit, the amount of money available with him and specify in such notification a date within which the owners of the coking coal mines or coke oven plants, the managing contractors and the owners of any machinery, equipment or other property which was vested in the Central Government or a Government company under this Act and which does not belong to the owners of the coking coal mines or coke oven plants may apply to him for payment. (2) Where any application is made under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall, after satisfying himself as to the right of the applicant to receive the whole or any part of the amount, pay the amount to the person concerned and in the event of there being a doubt or dispute as to the right of the person to receive the whole or any part of the amount, the Commissioner shall deal with the application in the manner specified in sub-section (1) of S. 26. " ( 18 ) THERE is force in the contention of the petitioners. Sections 23, 24, 25 and 25-A deal with the claims being made against the owners, they being admitted and thereafter being deducted out of the total amount payable, and the balance remaining to be paid to the owners. We have already held that there may be more than one owner in respect of a coking coal mine. As such each of them would be entitled to a portion of the amount payable under col. 5 of the First Schedule. We have already held that there may be more than one owner in respect of a coking coal mine. As such each of them would be entitled to a portion of the amount payable under col. 5 of the First Schedule. Section 23 (1) provides for making of "a claim against the owner" and if that claim is admitted that amount is to be deducted from the amount payable to that owner. ( 19 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of S. 23 refers to certain debts existing which are to be deducted from the amount payable. These debts are in the nature of wages, salary etc. payable to the employees in respect of the services rendered to the mine. The sums due to the State Government as royalty, rent or dead rent are also similarly deductible. ( 20 ) THE scheme of the Act clearly is that it is only from the portion allocable to the owner against whom a claim can be preferred that the claim which is admitted can be deducted. When Sec. 24 refers to the claim which is admitted by theCommissioner being deducted out of the amount payable to the owner, the reference to the said claim is to the one which is made under Section 23. A person who may have a claim against respondent No. 5 will prefer a claim against him and he cannot prefer a claim against the petitioner, though the petitioner is also an owner of the mine within the meaning of Sec. 3 (n ). Whenever any such claim is made, the owner concerned is given an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners, in the event of any claim being made against respondent No. 5, cannot even claim for such an opportunity to be granted to them. ( 21 ) IT appears to us that it is only the owner who has incurred those debts who would be liable to pay the same. It cannot be, and nor the language of the said section suggests, that the amounts of debts of one owner can be deducted from the compensation or amount payable to the other owner who did not owe that money. To put it differently, the sins of one owner cannot be visited on another. It cannot be, and nor the language of the said section suggests, that the amounts of debts of one owner can be deducted from the compensation or amount payable to the other owner who did not owe that money. To put it differently, the sins of one owner cannot be visited on another. If the debts under sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (2) of Sec. 23 are of respondent No. 5 then it is only from the amount which may be held to be payable to the said respondent that the said debts can be deducted. On the other hand, if any similar debt is due from the petitioners then out of the portion of the amount payable to the petitioners such debt can be deducted. ( 22 ) SIMILAR is the position with regard to the recovery of the sums advanced by the Government. Section 25 of the Act provides that amounts advanced by the Government may first be recovered out of the income, if any, which may be derived by the Government from the management of the mine before its nationalisation, and if the said income is not sufficient then the balance amount is to be recovered out of the amount payable to the owner under the Nationalisation Act. In order to recover this amount a claim has to be made by the Central Government to the Commissioner and the said claim has a priority over other claims. Tha amount advanced, which is covered by S. 25, has to be one which was advanced by the Central Government for the management of the mine. If, as is most likely, the advance has been made not to a raising contractor but to respondent No. 5 then the claim of the Government can only be against the person to whom the same had been advanced i. e. respondent No. 5. It was certainly not the intention of the Act that claims could be made against persons to whom sums had not been advanced. It is in this context that Sec. 25-A has to be interpreted. The reference, in S. 25-A, to the claims which have been admitted is to the claims referred to in Ss. 23 and 25 of the Act. It is in this context that Sec. 25-A has to be interpreted. The reference, in S. 25-A, to the claims which have been admitted is to the claims referred to in Ss. 23 and 25 of the Act. We have already observed that such claims can only be against those owners who had incurred the liability and not against the other persons who had not incurred the liability, though the latter persons may, by virtue of Section 3 (n) of the Act, be also regarded as owners of the mine. ( 23 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion it follows that if there are any claims against respondent No. 5, whether under S. 23, 24 or 25, the same can be recovered only out of the amount payable to respondent No. 5 and cannot be recovered from the petitioners share of the said amount. As to what is the amount, if any, receivable by the petitioner out of the sum of Rs. 93,28,500. 00 would have to be decided not in these proceedings but in accordance with the provisions of the Nationalisation Act. While working out this amount, the authority concerned will have to determine as to how much amount out of Rs. 93,28,500. 00 pertains to Kendwadih Colliery. It is only out of the amount so ascertained that the petitioner would be entitled to a share. It cannot claim any share out of the total amount of Rupees 93,28,500. 00 which represented amount payable for nationalisation of five collieries of respondent No. 5. ( 24 ) IT is also contended by the petitioners that under the agreement entered into by the petitioner-Company with respondent No. 5 it was empowered to set up coke ovens for the purpose of converting coal into hard coke and to sell the same. It is alleged that it had spent a sum of Rs. 3,10,000. 00 in putting up a battery of hard coke ovens. There is no denial by respondents 1 to 3 that these coke ovens had been taken over by the Government. Respondent No. 5, however, has denied the existence of such ovens having been set up. It is alleged that it had spent a sum of Rs. 3,10,000. 00 in putting up a battery of hard coke ovens. There is no denial by respondents 1 to 3 that these coke ovens had been taken over by the Government. Respondent No. 5, however, has denied the existence of such ovens having been set up. It is not necessary to go into the controversy, as to whether the petitioners had set up the coke ovens or not, because the question as to how the coke ovens have to be dealt with has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shri Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala, (1979) 3 SCC 609 . It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that coke oven was not coke oven plant and as such the same had not been nationalised. Before us it was admitted by the counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that the amount of Rupees 93,28,500. 00 stated in col. 5 of the First Schedule did not include in it the value of the coke ovens. The Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal s case held that the owners of the coke ovens could be entitled to the rent thereof. The quantum of rent was agreed to by the parties in the said case. There is no agreement in the present case because it has first to be ascertained, by a fact finding authority, as to who was the owner of the coke ovens, petitioner or respondent No. 5. It is obvious that this dispute cannot bedecided either by this Court in these proceedings or by the Commissioner under the Nationalisation Act. It will be proper, therefore, that the decision as to who was the owner of the coke ovens should be given by an officer or an authority nominated in this behalf by the Central Government who should also decide as to what is the amount of fair market rent which should be paid for the use of the said coke ovens by the respondents. ( 25 ) AS the petitioners have been held to be the owners within the meaning of S. 10 of the Nationalisation Act, they would be entitled to a portion of the amount specified in col. ( 25 ) AS the petitioners have been held to be the owners within the meaning of S. 10 of the Nationalisation Act, they would be entitled to a portion of the amount specified in col. 5 of the First Schedule, if they are able to satisfy that some of the building, plant, machinery etc. belonging to them has been nationalised and it is not necessary to decide the validity of the Nationalisation Act. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he would not press for a decision on this point if his clients are held to be the owners within the meaning of S. 10 of the said Act. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. As the petitioner-Company is a raising contractor and, therefore, an owner within the meaning of Section 10 of the Nationalisation Act, respondent No. 4 is directed to act in accordance with S. 26 of the Nationalisation Act and, within eight weeks from today, refer to a Court the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 in the manner stated therein, and the Court shall ascertain the amount payable to the petitioners, which amount shall be disbursed by respondent No. 4, in the light of the observations made in this decision. Further, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No. 1 directing it to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioners, with regard to the coke ovens alleged to have been set up by them, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal case after giving notice to respondent No. 5. The petitioners shall be entitled to costs against respondent No. 5. Counsel s fee Rs. 550. 00.