JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the villagers of Manoharpur in the district of Sundargarh, praying for quashing of the letter of Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (opposite party no.5), dated 26.7.2016 (Annexure-3), rejecting the claim of the petitioners for providing employment to one member of each displaced family and the decisions of the Rehabilitation & Periphery Development Advisory Committee (opposite party no.2), dated 19.1.2016 (Annexure4), deciding to provide one-time cash benefit in lieu of employment for the displaced families, as there is no scope for employment. Alternatively, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the notification dated 02.3.2010, as per Annexure-1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners have lost their cultivable as well as homestead lands in the process of acquisition and they come within the definition of ‘displaced family’, one member of each family is entitled to employment as per the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (“the R & R Policy, 2006” for short). It was submitted that the lands of the petitioners having been acquired for coal mining, which was initially allotted in favour of Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd (“OPGC” for short) and subsequently has been allotted to Odisha Coal and Power Corporation Ltd. (“OCPL” for short), the project proponent cannot decline to provide employment to the member of displaced family on the plea that such employment is not possible, as the entire mining activity is to be carried out through a Mine Developer & Operator/Mine Operator (“MDO/MO” for short). It was submitted that the allotment of the coal blocks initially made in favour of OPGC and now allotted to OCPL is regulated through Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and the basic/primary function of the allottee cannot be entrusted to a third party, so as to deny employment to the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners having lost all their lands, both agriculture and homestead in the acquisition proceeding, they are left with no source of livelihood and therefore, they are entitled to employment in the mining operation under the project proponent, who cannot be permitted to avoid their legal liability by offering cash compensation in lieu of such employment, on the plea that providing employment is not possible. 3. 3. In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands as per the notification dated 02.3.2010, under Annexure-1, is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is not permissible in law. It was submitted that as the lands of the petitioners contain coal deposits, the same can only be acquired through the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (“1957 Act” for short). It was submitted that in the instant case, the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands in village Manoharpur by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A. Act” for short), is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is reiterated that once the land in question is found to have deposits of coal, the same can only be acquired under the provisions of 1957 Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Naresh Singh & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2009 Madhya Pradesh 26, wherein it has been held that acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land comes within the ambit of the 1957 Act and the provisions of the L.A. Act will not apply. 4. Accordingly, it was submitted that if the project proponent is not in a position to provide employment to the petitioners as per the R & R Policy, 2006, the acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of the petitioners’ lands be quashed and fresh proceeding under the 1957 Act be initiated, providing all benefits to the land losers, as has been prescribed therein. 5. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that all the benefits provided under the R & R Policy, 2006, have been duly extended to the petitioners. As regard the claim of the petitioners for providing employment to one member of each “displaced family”, it was submitted that the R & R Policy, 2006 itself provides that where such employment cannot be provided because of reason to be explained in writing, cash compensation, as has been prescribed, shall be provided to such families. As regard the claim of the petitioners for providing employment to one member of each “displaced family”, it was submitted that the R & R Policy, 2006 itself provides that where such employment cannot be provided because of reason to be explained in writing, cash compensation, as has been prescribed, shall be provided to such families. In the instant case, the project proponent (OCPL) having given in writing that it has decided to engage MDO/MO for carrying out mining work and therefore, there is no scope to provide direct employment to the displaced persons. Be that as it may, as per the R & R Policy, 2006, the project proponent has decided to provide double the compensation amount provided under the R & R Policy, 2006, in lieu of employment. In this regard, it was submitted that the R & R Policy, 2006, provides for cash compensation of Rs.7,47,000/-, whereas OCPL has offered to pay Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation in lieu of employment. It was submitted that in view of such fact that OCPL will not be undertaking any mining activity and the entire mining work is to be executed by engaging MDO/MO, there is no scope to provide employment to the displaced persons, the Rehabilitation & Periphery Development Advisory Committee (“RPDAC” for short), in its 4th meeting held on 19.01.2016, for Manoharpur Coal Mine Project, Hemgir, decided that there being no scope for employment, one-time cash benefit in lieu of employment be provided for the displaced families, which cannot be faulted. 6. Coming to the challenge of the petitioners to the land acquisition initiated under the L.A. Act, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners had never challenged the land acquisition proceeding which had been initiated way back in March, 2010. Moreover, all the petitioners have already received the awarded compensation amount in respect of their acquired land without any objection since long. Further, many of the co-villagers have also received the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006, and have vacated their lands and shifted to the resettlement colony. It was submitted that some of the present petitioners and other villagers of Manoharpur had approached this Court earlier by way of 46 nos. of writ petitions, praying for a direction to the OPGC (opposite party no. It was submitted that some of the present petitioners and other villagers of Manoharpur had approached this Court earlier by way of 46 nos. of writ petitions, praying for a direction to the OPGC (opposite party no. 5), to extend the benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006, and this Court vide common order dated 18.3.2016, disposed of all the 46 writ petitions granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach OPGC (opposite party no.5), regarding grant of benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006. No challenge has ever been made to the land acquisition proceeding. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be now permitted to raise a plea regarding the validity of the acquisition proceeding at this belated stage. 7. As regard the plea of the petitioners regarding application of the 1957 Act for the purpose of acquiring coal bearing land, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks in the district of Sundargarh had been initially allotted by the Central Government in favour of OPGC under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 (“CMN Act” for short), as the OPGC was a Government Company. The said allocation had been made under Government Company dispensation as per the provisions of section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act and the mining lease was required to be executed by the State Government and OPGC under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act” for short) and the mining operation was required to be carried out under the provisions of section 4 of the MMDR Act 1957, upon execution of the mining lease under the said Act. It was accordingly submitted that when a coal mine is allotted in favour of an allottee under the CMN Act, who is required to apply for lease before the State Government under the MMDR Act 1957, the private land within the leasehold area has to be acquired under the L.A. Act and not under the 1957 Act. It is submitted that private land in village Manoharpur was acquired by the State Government for OPGC under the provisions of the L.A. Act, after disbursement of the compensation as per the award made and the possession of the land was taken over and the same vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, as per Section 16 of the L.A. Act, 1894. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the 1957 Act provides for acquisition of land bearing coal by the Central Government or Government Company authorized under Section 11 of the said Act. In the present case, the allotment of coal mines having been made under the CMN Act, the provisions of 1957 Act is not applicable. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that initially allotment of the coal mines in favour of OPGC along with other similar allotments were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.120 of 2012 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 24.8.2014, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others, (2014) 9 SCC 516 , cancelled the allocation of coal blocks and issued directions with regard to fresh allotment of such coal blocks, holding that no State Government or public sector undertakings of the State Government are eligible for mining coal for commercial use. In view of such cancellation of coal blocks by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Central Government promulgated Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 and Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014, under which, the auction and allotment of the coal blocks, which had been cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were put up for allotment. OCPL, which is a Company, wholly owned by the State Government, submitted its application in respect of the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks and the Nominated Authority under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, declared OCPL as the allottee of Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks. Pursuant to such allotment, Allotment Agreement was executed between the Nominated Authority and OCPL and subsequently allotment order was issued in favour of OCPL on 31.8.2015. It is submitted that as the entire coal mining activity is to be carried out by the MDO/MO, the OCPL intimated the RPDAC of the same and after due consideration of the matter, RPDAC in its 4th meeting held on 19.01.2016, approved the payment of compensation to the petitioners in lieu of employment as per the R & R Policy, 2006. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the mining activities of OCPL cannot be handed over to an outside agency and that the OCPL is bound to provide employment to the petitioners cannot be sustained either in law or fact, as there is no legal bar for the allottee to engage outside agency for mining work under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. 10. Learned counsel for opposite party no.6 (OCPL), reiterating the stand taken by the State counsel submitted that until the amendment was brought in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act w.e.f. 9.6.1993, the Central Government alone was permitted to mine coal through its companies with the limited exception of private companies engaged in the production of iron and steel. By virtue of the bar contained in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, between 1976 and 1993, no private company (other than the company engaged in the production of iron and steel) could have carried out coal mining operations in India. He next submitted that Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, which was amended on 09.6.1993, keeping in view the need for industrial development and economic growth permitted private sector’s entry in coal mining operations for captive use. Thus the power for grant of captive coal block coming to be governed by Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act, allowed only two kind of entities, namely, (a) the Central Government or undertakings/corporations owned by the Central Government; or (b) companies having end-use plants in iron and steel, power, washing of coal or cement to can carry out coal mining operations. 11. He further submitted that in terms of the Coal Mining Policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, dated 12.12.2001, the OPGC (opposite party no.5) vide its application dated 18.1.2007, applied for allotment of the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks for meeting the coal requirements of its 2400 MW Thermal Power Plant expansion project. Accordingly, on 25.7.2007, the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, allocated Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks in favour of OPGC under the Government Company dispensation route, in terms of the provision of Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act. It was submitted that OPGC after obtaining necessary administrative approval filed requisition for acquisition of land for operating the coal blocks. It was submitted that OPGC after obtaining necessary administrative approval filed requisition for acquisition of land for operating the coal blocks. After following due process of law as provided under the L.A. Act, the land acquisition proceeding was completed, on payment of compensation to the land losers. It was submitted that in the meantime, a PIL was filed before the Apex Court bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.120 of 2012 in Manohar Lal (supra), challenging the illegal and irregular allotment of coal blocks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 25.8.2014, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 516 , cancelled all the allotments and issued directions with regard to fresh allotment of coal blocks. 12. It was further submitted that pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (supra), the Central Government promulgated Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 and subsequently framed Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014, for regulating allotment of coal mines. On 18.12.2014, the Nominated Authority appointed by the Central Government under the aforesaid Ordinance, 2014, issued order for allotment of coal blocks in terms of section 5(1) of the said Ordinance 2014, in which, Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks were listed at serial nos.174 and 175. On 18.2.2015, the Nominated Authority issued allotment documents for allotment of coal blocks. On 21.2.2015, OCPL (opposite party no.6), being eligible under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, submitted application in respect of Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks. On 24.3.2015, the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, declared OCPL as the successful allottee in respect of the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal Mines. On 30.3.2015, the Central Government enacted the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, substituting the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, saving all actions taken under Ordinance, 2014. On 30.3.2015 Allotment Agreement in respect of the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal mines was executed between the Nominated Authority and OCPL. After execution of agreement, Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, issued allotment order dated 31.8.2015 in favour of OCPL, in respect of Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal mines for utilization of coal in the end-use Thermal Power Plant expansion project of OCPL. 13. After execution of agreement, Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, issued allotment order dated 31.8.2015 in favour of OCPL, in respect of Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal mines for utilization of coal in the end-use Thermal Power Plant expansion project of OCPL. 13. Learned counsel for the OCPL submitted that entire village of Manoharpur has been acquired for coal mining project, covering an area of Ac.538.01 dec., vide notification dated 14.2.2010. After following due process, award was passed under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. For resettlement and rehabilitation of the ‘displaced families’ of village Manoharpur, the RPDAC in its 4th meeting held on 19.01.2016 decided that all decisions, approvals and permissions etc. already accorded in various RPDAC meetings of Manoharpur Coal Mines Project shall be applicable to OCPL. 14. It was submitted that as per the provisions of R & R Policy, 2006, the OCPL extended the resettlement and rehabilitation benefits to the displaced families, as detailed under: “A. Resettlement Benefits: Sl. No. Resettlement Benefit Provision of Odisha R&R Policy Benefits Provided by OCPL 1 House Plot in R&R Colony Ac.0.10 of homestead land to each DFs in R&R colony Ac.0.10 of homestead land to each DFs in Sukhabandh R&R colony 2 Cash compensation in-lieu of house plot Rs.85,000/-to DFs opted for self-relocation Rs.85,000/-to DFs opted for self-relocation 3 House or House Building Assistance (HBA) Constructed House in the R&R Colony to each DFs or Rs.255000/-to DFs opted for self relocation Constructed house (RCC building) of 1060 sqft in the R&R colony with the provision of toilet, bathroom, cowshed and electricity and water connections. The cost of each constructed house is Rs.15.0 lakh. Rs.6.0 lakh is paid to 6 DFs each opted for self-relocation. 4 Temporary shed Rs.17000/-to DFs Rs.17,000/-to displaced families opted for self-relocation 5 Transportation Allowance Rs.3400/-or Free transportation Rs.3400/-per family as well as Free transportation facility for all families. Required support is being provided for demolition of stricture,salvaging of materials, staking, loading and unloading etc. 6 Subsistence Allowance Rs.3400/-per months per DFs for a period of 12 months from the date of physical displacement. Rs.3400/-per months to each DFs for a period of 12 months from the date of physical displacement. 7 Cooked Food No provision Cooked food is being supplied to DFs and his family members for 5 days from the date of shifting. 6 Subsistence Allowance Rs.3400/-per months per DFs for a period of 12 months from the date of physical displacement. Rs.3400/-per months to each DFs for a period of 12 months from the date of physical displacement. 7 Cooked Food No provision Cooked food is being supplied to DFs and his family members for 5 days from the date of shifting. Such facility has already been provided to 91 families who have shifted to R&R colony. 8 Groceries No provision Groceries (Rice, Dal, cooking Oil, Species, Potato, Onion, Sugar, Tea, Amul Powder, Salt etc) for 25 days is being supplied to 97 DFs who have shifted to R&R colony. 9 Housewarming No provision Housewarming (Griha Pratista Puja) of each newly constructed house in R&R colony is being organized before formal handover and shifting of DFs. All arrangement (puja items, Prasad, Brahman etc.) is being made by the project authority and bearing entire cost. Housewarming ceremony of 91 houses is being completed. B. Rehabilitation Benefits: Sl. No. Rehabilitation Benefit Provision of Odisha R&R Policy Benefits Provided by OCPL 1 Cash Compensation in-lieu of employment Category I II III IV,V & VI Rs. In Lakh 7.47 4.48 2.99 1.50 Category I II III IV, V & VI Rs. In Lakh 15.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 2 Annuity No Provision Annuity Scheme to all DFs for sustenance and social security. An amount of Rs.3000/- for month is to be paid to each for a period of 30 years with enhancement of Rs.500/-per month in each two years. 3 Training for Self-employment Project authority under the guidance of the Collector concerned will make adequate arrangement to provide vocational training to at least one member of each displaced family so as to equip him/her to start his/her own small enterprise and refine his/her skills to take advantage of new job opportunities. For those engaged in traditional occupations/handi crafts/handlooms, suitable training shall be organized at the cost of project authority to upgrade their existing skills The Company has set-up an ITI at Hemgir since 2014. The institute is affiliated to SCVT and offering course in Electrician Trade with 21 nos. of seat. Four batches of students have already been enrolled. Priority has been given to enrole candidates from project displaced and affected families. Till date 27 nos of candidates from project displaced families has been enrolled and imparted ITI training. The institute is affiliated to SCVT and offering course in Electrician Trade with 21 nos. of seat. Four batches of students have already been enrolled. Priority has been given to enrole candidates from project displaced and affected families. Till date 27 nos of candidates from project displaced families has been enrolled and imparted ITI training. Besides, the Company has engaged MART an expert agency for promotion of sustainable livelihood among the displaced families. The project aimed at to impart required skill development and capacity building training to members of displaced families on various livelihood activities, provide handholding support to establish individual or group entrepreneurial activities. The expenditure on sustainable livelihood project is Rs.2.58 Crores. In a span of five years 15. It was submitted that apart from the above mentioned resettlement and rehabilitation benefits, OCPL created a model resettlement colony having required infrastructure and amenities, which are beyond the R & R Policy, 2006, for greater sustainable development of all the displaced families as detailed herein: “Amenities & Infrastructure Created in the R&R Colony Besides, OCPL has also provided for other major basic amenities and facilities like drainage, sewage treatment plant (STP), kiosk, pond, children park, temple, rahas mandap, gram devi pitha, jatra maidan, play ground, crematorium, gochar land, orchard, outer trench with barbed-wire fencing, etc. for the inhabitants of the resettlement colony. 16. Coming to the claim of the petitioners for employment under the OCPL, it was submitted that as per the R & R Policy, 2006, Type-B deals with mining project, which provides that as far as practicable, the objective shall be to provide one member of each displaced/project affected family with employment in the project. However, where such employment cannot be provided because of reason to be explained in writing, cash compensation as detailed therein, shall be provided to such displaced families. As the OCPL will not carry out mining operation and all such mining activity is to be carried out through a MDO/MO, the Company offered one-time cash benefit and monthly cash benefit scheme in lieu of employment, which are as follows: “a) Rs.15,00,000/-per eligible displaced family as onetime cash compensation in-lieu of employment. (b) Monthly cash benefit of Rs.3,000/-to each displaced family in lieu of employment under an Annuity Scheme for 30 years. (b) Monthly cash benefit of Rs.3,000/-to each displaced family in lieu of employment under an Annuity Scheme for 30 years. Provision for biannually increase of Rs.500/- (c) Imparting skill and capacity building training to enhance their employability so that they can be engaged under the MDO/MO or elsewhere gainfully. ” 17. Accordingly, the RPDAC in its 4th meeting held on 19.01.2016, decided that since the coal mines will be operated through MDO/MO, there is little scope for employment and the rehabilitation and resettlement package offered by OCPL to the project affected families is considered to be the best in the present scenario. 18. It was submitted that after establishment of the rehabilitation habitat (colony) and after certification of full-fledged operation by the District Collector, the process of shifting of displaced families of the village Manoharpur to the rehabilitation habitat at Sukhaband has already commenced and out of 244 numbers of displaced families, 99 numbers have already been shifted to the rehabilitation habitat by availing all the aforementioned rehabilitation benefits. It was submitted that all the petitioners are entitled to the aforementioned benefits applicable to displaced family for category-1 and will be provided with all such benefits from the date of actual vacation of the acquired land. 19. Coming to the challenge to the acquisition proceeding initiated under the L.A. Act, learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 (OCPL) submitted that the 1957 Act provide for acquisition of coal bearing land for coal mining by the Central Government or Government Company authorized under Section 11 of the said Act. In the present case, the allotment being made under Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act and the mining lease deed having been executed and registered under the provisions of the MMDR Act 1957, the provisions of 1957 Act has no application. It was further submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (supra), the coal mines of Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal mines having allotted by the Central Government in favour of OCPL under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, the plea of the petitioners that the acquisition of the land bearing coal deposits cannot be acquired under the L.A. Act and that the acquisition can only be made under the provisions of 1957 Act is wholly erroneous and misconceived. 20. 20. It was further submitted that as petitioners have never raised any objection to the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and having accepted the compensation awarded in respect of their acquired land, they are estopped from challenging the acquisition at this belated stage. In this regard, it was submitted that all the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in various writ petitions and their only prayer was for extending the benefits of R & R Policy, 2006, and providing them with employment under the project. This Court had permitted the petitioners to file representation before the OPGC (opposite party no.5), who has rejected the same vide letter dated 26.7.2016 (Annexure-3), the present challenge to the acquisition proceeding initiated under the L.A. Act cannot be sustained in law. 21. There is no dispute that the land acquisition proceeding in respect of village Manoharpur had been initiated way back in March 2010. None of the petitioner had ever objected to such acquisition and all of them have already accepted the compensation amount awarded in respect of their acquired lands without any protest except in 2 cases, where the awarded compensation amount has been deposited in the Civil Court due to inter se dispute between the claimants. Even in the earlier 46 writ petitions filed by the petitioners and others, no challenge was made to the acquisition proceeding and the only prayer of the petitioners in those writ petitions was to direct OPGC (opposite party no.5) to extend all the benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement to the petitioners, including employment to at least one member of the displaced family, as provided for mining projects under R & R Policy, 2006. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be now permitted to raise the plea with regard to the legality and validity of the acquisition proceeding at this highly belated stage. 22. Even otherwise, as the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks have been allocated by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Coal under Government Company dispensation route in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act, the plea of the petitioners with regard to the application of the 1957 Act for acquisition of coal bearing land cannot be accepted. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manohar Lal (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the power of the Central Government under the 1957 Act and CMN Act, has proceeded to hold as under: “59. The 1957 Act provides for general restrictions on undertaking prospecting and mining operations, the procedure for obtaining reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases and the rule-making power of regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the CMN Act enables persons specified therein only to carry on coal mining operation. In clause (c), it is provided that no lease for winning or mining coal should be granted in favour of any person other than the Government, government company or corporation referred to in clause (a). Under clause (b) of subsection (3), excepting the mining leases granted before 1976 in favour of the Government, government company or corporation referred to in clause (a) and any sub-lease(s) granted by any such Government, government company or corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force immediately before such commencement insofar as they relate to the winning or mining of coal, stand terminated. When a sub-lease stands terminated under sub-section (3), sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that it shall be lawful for the Central Government or the government company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government to obtain a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of whole or part of the land covered by mining lease which stands so terminated. The above provisions in the CMN Act, as inserted in 1976, clearly show that the target of these provisions in the CMN Act is coal mines, pure and simple. The CMN Act effectively places embargo on granting the leases for winning or mining of coal to persons other than those mentioned in Section 3(3)(a). Does the CMN Act for the purposes of regulation and development of mines to the extent provided therein alter the legal regime incorporated in the 1957 Act ? We do not think so. What the CMN Act does is that in regard to the matters falling under the Act, the legal regime in the 1957 Act is made subject to the prescription under Sections 3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act. We do not think so. What the CMN Act does is that in regard to the matters falling under the Act, the legal regime in the 1957 Act is made subject to the prescription under Sections 3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act. The 1957 Act continues to apply in full rigour for effecting prescription of Sections 3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act. For grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of coal mines, the MMDR regime has to be mandatorily followed. The 1957 Act and so also the 1960 Rules do not provide for allocation of coal blocks nor do they provide any mechanism, mode or manner of such allocation.” 23. In case of Naresh Singh (supra), the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 4(1) of the 1957 Act gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares by notification dated 6th February, 1996. After considering the objections received and report of the Competent Authority and after consulting the State Government, the Central Government issued notification dated 4th February, 1997, that it was satisfied that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407. 408 hectares approximately should be acquired. Accordingly, vide notification dated 24th June, 1998, issued under Section 9(1) of the 1957 Act, the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares were acquired. Thereafter, the rights in and over the said land acquired by the Central Government vested in South Eastern Coal-fields Ltd. (‘SECL’ for short), by order of the Central Government issued under Section 11(1) of the 1957 Act. However the Central Government instead of proceeding with the acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of 1957 Act, directed the concerned Collector to issue necessary notification under the L.A. Act to acquire 699.698 hectares of tenancy land and to take possession of the same under Section 17 of the said Act immediately. Pursuant to such direction, the State Government initiated the process of acquisition of land under L.A. Act and the Collector passed the award determining compensation under Section 11 of the said Act. Pursuant to such direction, the State Government initiated the process of acquisition of land under L.A. Act and the Collector passed the award determining compensation under Section 11 of the said Act. Therefore, the land-owners, whose lands were so acquired were deprived of their right for determination of just and fair compensation under Section 14 of the 1957 Act. In the aforesaid factual settings, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, ultimately directed the Central Government to issue notifications under the 1957 Act for acquisition of the land and take possession of the land and get the compensation determined in accordance with Section 14 of the 1957 Act, for onward payment to the land-losers, after adjustment of the compensation already received. 24. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the allotment of the coal blocks have been made by the Central Government in favour of OPGC under Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act. Furthermore, the initial allotment of the coal mines made in favour of OPGC was cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (supra). Subsequent thereto, fresh allotment of the coal mines has been made by the Central Government in favour of OCPL (opposite party no.6), as per the provisions of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Naresh Singh (supra), rendered under the factual settings of that case, has no application to the facts of the present case. For the reasons as aforestated, we do not find any merits in the writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.