Judgment :- Common Judgment: (D. Murugesan, J.) The appellants, who are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing cement, and whose lands were sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamilnadu to enable Tamilnadu Cements Limited (in short known as TANCEM) to conduct operations for mining limestones, lost their challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and hence, are before us in the present appeals. 2. The brief facts leading to the above appeals are as follows:- (a) The Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., a statutory corporation, wholly owned by the Government of Tamilnadu, obtained an industrial license to set up a cement factory in Ariyalur Taluk, of erstwhile Trichy District, in the year 1975. The State Geological branch conducted detailed prospecting operations in the area and submitted a report, based upon which, the Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., requested the sanction of the Government for the acquisition of patta lands of an extent of Acres 1868.96 and poromboke lands of an extent of 444.07 acres, in the area, for the purpose of carrying out mining operations, setting up a factory, providing a Railway siding etc. By an order in G.O.Ms.No.679, Industries Department, dated 26-5-1977, the Government accepted the request of Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., for the acquisition of the said lands. (b) The said Government order also identified both the private patta lands as well as Government poromboke lands, required for mining operations, in the villages of Perianagalur, Aminabad, Kallankurichi, Kairalbad, Ariyalur and Valajanagar, in Ariyalur Taluk. (c) In the meantime, a company known as TAMILNADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED, (hereinafter referred to as TANCEM) was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, both for the purpose of taking over the cement factory of Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., at Alangulam, Ramand District and for the purpose of production, manufacture, process and sale of cement, Portland cement, alumina cement, lime and limestone, clinker and other bye products. (d) Thereafter, the Government of Tamilnadu issued a notification in G.O.Ms.No.921, Industries (M2) Department, dated 25-8-1986, reserving an extent of 1283.62 acres of lands in Kairulabad, Perianagalur, Valajanagaram, Ameenabad, Pudupalayam and Reddypalayam villages in Ariyalur Taluk, for exploitation of limestones by TANCEM. The notification was issued by order of and in the name of the Governor under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960. The notification was issued by order of and in the name of the Governor under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960. (e) After such reservation of the lands M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., applied to the Government in Revenue Department, in the year 1990, for the grant of permission under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, to acquire and hold lands in excess of the ceiling limit in Velur-Valajanagar and Anandavadi villages of Ariyalur Taluk. By an order in G.O.Ms.No.1255, Revenue Department dated 19.9.1991, the Government accorded permission to M/s.Dalmiya Cements to acquire and hold an extent of 620.51 acres in Valajanagaram village and 238.50 acres in Anandavadi village (totaling to 859.01 ordinary acres = 286.337 standard acres), for mining lime stone for the manufacture of cement within a period of two years subject to the other conditions stipulated in the said order. (f) At about the same time, TANCEM also requested the State Government to acquire 252.36 acres of patta land in Valajanagar village, from out of the lands already reserved. The Government issued the first notification in G.O.(2D)No.255, Industries (MIA.I) Department, dated 21.9.1993, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of certain lands in Valajanagaram village and the said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.40-A dated 13.10.1993 in Part II Section 2 (Supplement). The said notification was followed by several subsequent notifications in respect of the other lands in Valajanagaram village and in other villages. (g) In the meantime, M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., applied for the grant of mining lease for limestone in the lands in Valajanagaram village to the State Government. However, the said application was rejected by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries (MMAII) Department, dated 10.2.1994. (g) In the meantime, M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., applied for the grant of mining lease for limestone in the lands in Valajanagaram village to the State Government. However, the said application was rejected by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries (MMAII) Department, dated 10.2.1994. Some of the reasons cited by the Government for rejecting the mining lease application of M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., are as follows:- (i) that the lands in respect of which the mining lease application was made, had already been reserved for State exploitation through TANCEM; (ii) that TANCEM had already filed an application questioning the grant of exemption to M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961; (iii) that the area remaining after exclusion of the land reserved for State exploitation, does not form part of a compact and contiguous block, dis-entitling the applicant for the grant of a mining lease in view of the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; (iv) that the exemption granted under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, in favour of M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., had also expired and that the said exemption does not confer any right for the issue of prospecting license and mining lease on them. (h) Thereafter the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.179, Industries (MIA.I) Department, dated 6.7.1994, according administrative sanction for acquisition of some more lands in the aforesaid villages in Ariyalur Taluk for the purpose of exploitation by TANCEM. (i) In the meantime, following the Section 4(1) notification dated 21.9.1993, at least 14 notifications were issued during the period from October 1993 to July 1994 under Section 4(1) of the Act and several notifications were issued from December 1995 to March 1996, covering the lands owned by M/s.Madras Cements Ltd., M/s.Nilgiris Cements Ltd., M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd., M/s.Alagappa Cements Ltd., M/s.K.G.M.Minerals Pvt. Ltd., and some private individuals. (j) M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7926 of 1994 and 7927 of 1994 challenging G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries dated 10.2.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.921, Industries dated 25.8.1986 respectively. While G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.2.1994 related to the rejection of their mining lease application, G.O.Ms.No.921 dated 25.8.1986 related to the reservation of lands by the Government for State exploitation through TANCEM. (j) M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7926 of 1994 and 7927 of 1994 challenging G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries dated 10.2.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.921, Industries dated 25.8.1986 respectively. While G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.2.1994 related to the rejection of their mining lease application, G.O.Ms.No.921 dated 25.8.1986 related to the reservation of lands by the Government for State exploitation through TANCEM. Both these writ petitions are stated to have been pending as on date and M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., is in enjoyment of a stay order. (k) In so far as the lands of M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., sought to be acquired through various notifications are concerned, part of them were owned by M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., in its own name and the other parts owned in the names of its subsidiary companies known as M/s.Anoopama Investment Limited, M/s.Poonam Finance Limited and M/s.Kanika Investments Limited. All these companies submitted their objections to the notification and participated in the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Act. The objections were however overruled and the Government issued necessary declarations under Section 6 of the Act on various dates from November 1994 to March 1997. (l) In the meantime, M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., applied for the grant of permission under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 to acquire and hold lands of an extent of 902.44 ordinary acres in Velur Valajanagar and Anandavadi villages in addition to the permission granted to them earlier. As a matter of fact, the original permission granted to them under G.O.Ms.No.1255, Revenue dated 19.9.1991 for a period of two years had expired by then and their request for extension of time was rejected by the Government by an order dated 24.11.1994 on the ground that the company failed to acquire/hold the lands on or before 18.9.1993. But the company filed a revision petition before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. Even while dismissing the revision petition on 2.5.1995, the Tribunal granted liberty to the company to apply afresh to the Government. Accordingly, the company applied afresh for permission under Section 37-A on 22.8.1995 and the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.614, Revenue (L.R.II(1)) Department, dated 9.7.1996, granting permission to the company to hold an extent of 600.10 acres so far purchased by the company, from out of 859.01 acres already allowed under the earlier Government Order of the year 1991. Accordingly, the company applied afresh for permission under Section 37-A on 22.8.1995 and the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.614, Revenue (L.R.II(1)) Department, dated 9.7.1996, granting permission to the company to hold an extent of 600.10 acres so far purchased by the company, from out of 859.01 acres already allowed under the earlier Government Order of the year 1991. (m) It is relevant to point out that the exemption under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, was sought for by M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., in its own name and not in the name of the subsidiary companies, though part of the lands were acquired in the names of those companies. (n) After the publication of the declarations, under Section 6 of the Act, 28 writ petitions were filed by M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., challenging the notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the declarations published under Section 6 of the Act. (o) Similarly, M/s.Madras Cements Ltd., filed 10 writ petitions, M/s.Nilgiris Cements Ltd., filed 6 writ petitions, M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd., filed 4 writ petitions, M/s.Alagappa Cements Ltd., filed 3 writ petitions, M/s.K.G.M.Minerals Pvt. Ltd., filed 2 writ petitions and 7 individuals filed separate writ petitions. (p) All the 60 writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge by a common order dated 16.12.2002 and it is against the said common order that the above writ appeals have been filed. 3. As the grounds of challenge in all the writ appeals remain the same and hence they are dealt with in common. (p) All the 60 writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge by a common order dated 16.12.2002 and it is against the said common order that the above writ appeals have been filed. 3. As the grounds of challenge in all the writ appeals remain the same and hence they are dealt with in common. Mr.Shanthi Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants M/s.Dalmiya Cements (Bharat) Ltd., contended – (a) that the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and colourable exercise of power, inasmuch as the exploitation of mines and minerals are governed by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the State Government is not entitled to circumvent the procedure of obtaining the approval of the Central Government for carrying on mining operations, prescribed under the said Act, by resorting to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act; (b) that after the deletion of Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, with effect from 13.4.1988 under an amendment, the reservation made under the said rule by the Government of Tamil Nadu in favour of TANCEM under G.O.Ms.No.921, Industries dated 25.8.1986, did not survive; (c) that after the introduction of Section 17A in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, with effect from 10.2.1987 by way of an amendment, the State Government cannot acquire a land for mining operations without obtaining the approval of the Central Government; (d) that the State Government, after having granted permission to acquire land to the appellant under Section 37A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, is barred by the principles of “Promissory estoppel” from initiating acquisition proceedings; (e) that the acquisition proceedings are not for a public purpose, inasmuch as TANCEM has been declared as a sick company by the proceedings of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, in its proceedings dated 18.6.2003 after recording a statement from the Government that it had decided to disinvest its stake in TANCEM, which would go to show that the actual purpose of continuing the land acquisition proceedings, is to pass on the land to third parties that would acquire TANCEM and the acquisition proceeding are motivated. (f) that since the acquisition proceedings are not complete in view of the interim orders of stay of dispossession, and also since the Government had decided to disinvest its holding in TANCEM, some private company may acquire TANCEM and become a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, in violation of the special procedure prescribed under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for private companies. 4. Mr.V.Suthakar, Mr.C.Prakasam, Mr.K.R.Krishnan and Mr.M.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in other writ appeals adopted the arguments of Mr.Shanthi Bushan, learned senior counsel. However, Mr.Satish Parasaran, apart from adopting the arguments of the learned senior counsel, also raised two additional contentions namely, that in most of the cases, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published beyond the time limit stipulated under the Act and that the mandatory requirement of publication of the notifications in the Newspapers having circulation in the locality was violated, by making publications in Newspapers having no circulation in the area. 5. 5. Per contra, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government as well as the beneficiary viz., TANCEM, contended – (a) that there were no mala fides or colourable exercise of power on the part of the Government in initiating the land acquisition proceedings, since even two decades before the purchase of the lands in question by the appellants, the State Government had conducted a prospecting operations of the area through the State Geological Branch way back in the year 1975 and accepted the request of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (out of which TANCEM was born), for the acquisition of a large extent of land in the same area for the purpose of setting up a Cement Factory and exploitation of limestone and it is only on coming to know of the same, that the appellants played a pro-active role and took pre-emptive initiatives to acquire the land and sought permission for such acquisition; (b) that despite the deletion of Rule 58 from the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, with effect from 13.4.1988, the reservation made by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.921 dated 25.8.1986, continued in view of Rule 59 of the said Rules; (c) that Section 17-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, introduced with effect from 10.2.1987 by way of amendment, occupies a different field and even if the said provision is invoked, the consent of the owner of the land is made necessary by Rule 22 (3)(h) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and hence it would be a futile exercise to resort to the provisions contained in Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; (d) that the grant of permission under Section 37-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, does not operate as a “promissory estoppel” since the permission itself was granted subject to various conditions and the same was also subject to the statutory provisions contained in Section 6(1)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and at any rate, the sequence of events shows that the appellants attempted to outsmart the Government by entering into the fray, long after the Government carried out prospecting operations and decided to acquire the land; (e) that TANCEM has started making profits from the financial year 2002-2003 and had already shown positive signs of recovery and hence there is no proposal for the Government to disinvest its stake in TANCEM; (f) that while the cement manufactured by private companies such as the appellants are sold in the market at the rate of Rs.200/- per bag, the cement manufactured by TANCEM is sold at the rate of Rs.145/- per bag and the entire production of TANCEM is used for consumption by the Government of Tamil Nadu for its public welfare projects, making it clear that the acquisition of land for the benefit of TANCEM is actually for a public purpose; and (g) that in view of the decision taken by the Government not to disinvest its stake in TANCEM after finding TANCEM coming out of the woods, the question of third party private companies getting the benefit of acquisition and the consequential violation of the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, does not arise. 6. Before we devolve upon the contentions raised by Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, we would like to consider at first, the two additional submissions made by Mr. Sathish Parasan. In so far as the first additional contention regarding the publication of the declaration under Section 6 beyond the time limit, the list of dates contained in the impugned judgment of the single Judge are referable. From the dates mentioned in paragraphs-3 to 9 of the impugned judgment, it appears as though the declarations under Section 6 were published after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But the learned Advocate General produced a detailed tabulation sheet containing the dates of last publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) and the dates of publication of Section 6 declaration in each case. As per this tabulation sheet, all the declarations under Section 6 were published within the time limit prescribed. The correctness of the particulars found in the said tabulation sheet filed by the learned Advocate General is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants and hence the contention that Declaration under Section 6 were beyond the time limit fails. 7. In so far as the other additional contention namely, publication of notification in dailies having no wider circulation is concerned, it is seen that the publication of the notifications were made in Newspapers such as "Madurai Mani", "Dinamalar" etc. Though a specific ground had been raised by the appellants in their affidavits filed in support of the writ petition that these Newspapers had no wide circulation in the area, the learned Judge proceeded to reject the said contention on the ground that there were no pleadings. In the absence of details as to the circulation of the dailies, the conclusion reached by the learned Judge in this regard cannot be faulted. That apart, it is seen that all the appellants participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and filed their objections. Therefore, the fact that the notifications were published in these Newspapers, did not really prejudice the appellants. In any event, 'Dinamalar' is a Newspaper, having wide circulation in the State and hence we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this contention. Accordingly, we reject the same. 8. Therefore, the fact that the notifications were published in these Newspapers, did not really prejudice the appellants. In any event, 'Dinamalar' is a Newspaper, having wide circulation in the State and hence we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this contention. Accordingly, we reject the same. 8. REGARDING MALA FIDE AND COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER: In order to test the tenability of the above contention, we must refer to the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 issued thereunder and the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with reference to the provisions contained in the Constitution. Entry 54 in List-I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution reads as follows:- “54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.” Entry 23 in List-II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution reads as follows:- “23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union.” Entry 42 in List-III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution reads as follows:- “42. Acquisition and requisitioning of property.” 9. Just as the Parliament, in exercise of the power conferred under Article 246 of the Constitution, enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it allowed the continuance of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be in force by virtue of Article 372 (1) of the Constitution and the said Act was also adapted by the President by Adaptation of Laws Order 1950, in exercise of the power conferred on him under Clause (2) of Article 372 of the Constitution. While the object of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as spelt out in its preamble is “to amend the law for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for companies”, the object of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, spelt out in Section 2 of the said Act is as follows:-“It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.” 10. Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, empowers the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of minerals. But, Section 15 empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions, in respect of minor minerals. Section 17 of the Act, confers special powers upon the Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands. Section 17-A, introduced by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1986, which came into effect on 10.2.1987, empowered both the Central Government and the State Government to reserve any area for the purpose of conservation of minerals. But while doing so, Sub Section (1) of Section 17-A made it necessary for the Central Government to “consult the State Government”. On the other hand, Sub Section (2) of Section 17-A made it necessary for the State Government to obtain the “approval of the Central Government”. Thus, the provisions of Section 17-A empowered the Central Government to reserve any area “after consultation with the State Government” and empowered the State Government as well to reserve any area “with the approval of the Central Government”. 11. Section 24 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, empowered a person authorized by the Central Government to enter into and inspect any mine, and conduct a survey, take measurements and examine any person as well as all documents and records found therein. Section 24-A, again inserted, by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act (Act 37 of 1986), with effect from 10.2.1987, made it lawful for the holder of a prospecting license or mining lease issued under the Act, to enter the land over which such license or lease had been granted and carry out all such prospecting and mining operations as may be prescribed. The holder of a prospecting license or mining lease is liable only to pay compensation to the occupier of the surface of the land covered by such license or lease, for any loss or damage arising out of the mining or prospecting operations, by virtue of Sub Section (2) of Section 24-A. But the power to determine the amount of compensation is vested with the State Government under Sub Section (3) of Section 24-A. 12. It is in the teeth of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 2, 13, 17, 17-A, 24 and 24-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, that the learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that the invocation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government is a colourable exercise of power and is vitiated by mala fides. 13. It is true that apart from indicating the scope, purpose and ambit of the Act in the preamble itself, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, also contains a declaration contemplated by Entry 54 of List-I (Union List) under the VII Schedule to the Constitution, indicating the importance of the piece of legislation. But the entire scheme of the Act, deals only with the right of exploitation of the mines, regulation of the mines and the development of minerals. While the Act empowers the State Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals, the power to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of other minerals is reserved for the Central Government. Section 17-A of the Act, makes it incumbent upon the Central and State Governments to work in close coordination with each other, when they want to reserve any area for conservation or for undertaking prospecting or mining operations. This can be well appreciated by looking into the manner in which the powers of the Central and State Governments are drafted under Section 17-A, which reads as follows:- “Section 17-A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.—(1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving any mineral and after consultation with the State Government, may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved. (2) The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or Corporation owned or controlled by it or by the Central Government and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved. (3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) the State Government undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under prospecting licence or mining lease." 14. By the same Amendment Act 37 of 1986, Section 24-A was also incorporated into the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which reads as follows:- “Section 24.A. Rights and liabilities of a holder of prospecting licence or mining lease.—(1) On the issue of a prospecting licence or mining lease under this Act and the rules made thereunder, it shall be lawful for the holder of such licence or lease, his agents or his servants or workmen to enter the lands over which such lease or licence had been granted at all times during its currency and carry out all such prospecting or mining operations as may be prescribed: Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon an enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (except with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days’ notice in writing of his intention to do so. (2) The holder of a prospecting licence or mining lease referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to pay compensation in such manner as may be prescribed to the occupier of the surface of the land granted under such licence or lease for any loss or damage which is likely to arise or has arisen from or in consequence of the mining or prospecting operations. (3) The amount of compensation payable under sub-section (2) shall be determined by the State Government in the manner prescribed.” 15. A conjoint reading of Sections 17-A and 24-A makes it clear that (a) the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or (b) the State Government with the approval of the Central Government may reserve any area for conservation and also undertake prospecting or mining operations. For the purpose of undertaking prospecting or mining operations, the holder of a prospecting license or mining lease, is empowered to enter any land over which such lease or license has been granted and carry out all such prospecting or mining operations. 16. Thus the entire scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, does not deal either with the acquisition of ownership of the land over which any license or lease is granted or with the surface rights on the land. In particular, the proviso under Section 24-A prohibits the holder of a license or lease from entering into any building or upon an enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling house (except with the consent of the occupier) without giving a prior notice. Consequently, the ownership of the land is to remain untouched and the holder of a license or lease is liable to vacate the land either on the expiry or termination of the lease or license or after exhaustion of the mineral resources. From a close scrutiny of these provisions, it appears that the holder of a prospecting license or mining lease under the Act, cannot exercise any right over and above what is prescribed by general or special order issued by the Central Government under Section 24 of the Act. 17. From a close scrutiny of these provisions, it appears that the holder of a prospecting license or mining lease under the Act, cannot exercise any right over and above what is prescribed by general or special order issued by the Central Government under Section 24 of the Act. 17. Section 24 of the Act empowers any person authorized by the Central Government by general or special order to – (a) enter and inspect any mine; (b) survey and take measurements in any such mine; (c) weigh, measure or take measurements of the stocks of minerals lying at any mine; (d) examine any document, book, register, or record in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or connected with, any mine and place, marks of identification thereon, and take extracts from or make copies of such document, book, register or record; (e) order the production of any such document, book, register, as is referred to in clause (d); and (f) examine any person having the control of, or connected with any mine. 18. Consequently, if the State Government or Central Government wishes to develop any area identified as a mine, put up factories for processing the minerals mined or quarried, build storage space for the minerals excavated and construct buildings for locating offices and residential houses for the employees engaged in connection with the said operations, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, does not provide any scope for the same. Keeping this lacunae in the scheme of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, in mind, if we look into the various Government Orders issued by the State, we could find an answer as to why the State Government did not think fit to proceed under the provisions of Section 17-A(2) read with Section 24-A of the said Act. 19. Paragraph-2 of the earliest Government Order G.O.Ms.No.679, Industries Department, dated 26.5.1977, dealt with the request made by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, for the acquisition of lands. The purposes for which the acquisition was sought for, is indicated in the said paragraph-2 as “ mining limestone, setting up the factory etc., and for provision of Railway siding for the cement plant”. The purposes for which the acquisition was sought for, is indicated in the said paragraph-2 as “ mining limestone, setting up the factory etc., and for provision of Railway siding for the cement plant”. It is in pursuance of the acceptance of the said request that the next order dated 25.8.1986, was passed reserving the area by invoking Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The subsequent orders dated 1.2.1993 and 6.7.1994, under which administrative sanction was granted for the acquisition of the lands, were only in pursuance of the purpose spelt out in the earliest order. Hence, it is clear that the purpose for which the State Government resorted to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was actually wholesome and composite, which could not have been achieved by the State Government by resorting to the procedure prescribed under Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Hence the contention that the State Government resorted to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in order to circumvent the requirement of approval by Central Government under Section 17-A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the invocation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State Government cannot be termed as a colourable exercise of power.