JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. These appeals are all directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2018 of the learned Single Judge finally disposing of three Writ Petitions and a contempt case. The contempt case has been closed as per the judgment and there is no appeal against the said portion of the judgment. W.A.No.1166 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.13549 of 2014 while W.A.No.1156 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.7511 of 2018 and W.A.No.1178 of 2018 arises out of W.P(C) 39371 of 2017. All the appeals are filed by the respective Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners are conducting quarries spread over Government land as well as private land owned by them. The quarrying operations on the Government land are conducted on the strength of leases issued to them. W.A.No.1166 of 2018 is treated as the leading case and the parties and the documents produced are referred to in the manner in which they are described in the said case, unless otherwise indicated. 2. There are two appellants in W.A.No.1166 of 2018, one of them is a private limited company and the other a partnership firm. They have been conducting two quarries at Ayyampuzha village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. They are in possession of varying extents of land with respect to which, they have been granted leases. Exhibit P1 dated 03.03.2008 is a copy of the lease granted in favour of the first appellant, while exhibit P2 is a copy of the lease granted in favour of the second appellant. It is not in dispute that, the leases were granted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act for short) and the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967, the provisions of which have been extensively amended in the year 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the MMC Rules). As per exhibit P1, the lease was granted for a period of seven years while as per exhibit P2 the lease was for a period of ten years. The said lease has expired on 14.12.2017. The lease has not been renewed thereafter. W.P.(C) No.13549 of 2014 was filed challenging the levy of seignorage by respondents 3 and 4. (exhibits P12 and P13) 3. In W.P.(C) No.7511 of 2018, what was under challenge was exhibit P18 by which seignorage was levied by the Tahsildar on the petitioner therein. The said lease has expired on 14.12.2017. The lease has not been renewed thereafter. W.P.(C) No.13549 of 2014 was filed challenging the levy of seignorage by respondents 3 and 4. (exhibits P12 and P13) 3. In W.P.(C) No.7511 of 2018, what was under challenge was exhibit P18 by which seignorage was levied by the Tahsildar on the petitioner therein. In W.P.(C) No.39371 of 2017, the Writ Petitioner had challenged exhibit P8 proceedings of the District Collector by which a request for the issue of an NOC was rejected. All the three Writ Petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge together and disposed of by the common judgment against which these three Writ Appeals are filed. 4. It was contended by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the quarrying activity was being conducted by them on the strength of leases issued by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules. The petitioners had been paying the royalty, the dead rent and surface rent regularly and without any default. It was in the said circumstances that a demand for payment of seignorage was made by the Tahsildar and the Geologists by the impugned proceedings. It was contended that, since all payments stipulated by the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules were being made by the petitioners, there was no justification for demand of seignorage by the impugned proceedings that were under challenge. It was contended that, levy and extraction of seignorage was not permitted by either the MMDR Act or the MMC Rules. The State does not have the power to impose such levy on the petitioner over and above what has been permitted by the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules. The Centre by enacting the MMDR Act had taken over the power of the State in respect of regulation of mines and developments of minerals. Therefore, the State was left with no power to impose the impugned levy. It was therefore contended that, the order that was under challenge was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. The contentions of the petitioners were opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavits. It was contended that, the levy of seignorage was part of the conditions subject to which the lease was initially granted to the petitioners. It was therefore contended that, the order that was under challenge was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. The contentions of the petitioners were opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavits. It was contended that, the levy of seignorage was part of the conditions subject to which the lease was initially granted to the petitioners. Therefore, they were estopped from putting forward the present contention that no such levy was permissible or liable to be extracted. The other contention of the respondents was that, the State was clothed with sufficient powers to impose the levy by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Conservancy Act for short) and the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). The seignorage was sought to be collected only with respect to the government lands from which, the petitioners were permitted to extract metal by conducting quarrying operations. The Government as the owner of the land was perfectly within its rights to demand and recover the said payment. Since the petitioners had not paid the seignorage that was demanded they were not entitled to a renewal of the lease that has expired. It was for the said reason that as per exhibit P8 in W.P.(C) No.39371 of 2017, the application for a No Objection Certificate was declined by the District Collector. It is contended that the said proceedings were justified and in accordance with law. 6. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that despite the enactment of the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules, the State was still possessed of powers in respect of its lands and that the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules thereunder confers sufficient power on the State to levy and collect the seignorage that was demanded. Therefore, it was found that there was nothing wrong in the demand for seignorage made by the State. However, the learned Single Judge found that the computation of seignorage made in the impugned orders was not in order and therefore, a fresh quantification has been directed to be made after considering the objections of the petitioners also. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that these Writ Appeals are filed. 7. However, the learned Single Judge found that the computation of seignorage made in the impugned orders was not in order and therefore, a fresh quantification has been directed to be made after considering the objections of the petitioners also. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that these Writ Appeals are filed. 7. According to Advocate James Koshy who appears for all the appellants, when the Centre enacted the MMDR Act it denuded the State of all its powers in respect of land and minor minerals. Reliance is placed on Section 2 of the MMDR Act to point out that, regulation of mines and development of minerals were taken over by the Centre by virtue of the said provision. As per Section 4 of the said Act, overriding effect has been provided to the provisions thereof. The said Act goes on to provide for the levy and collection of royalty, dead rent and surface rent. As per Section 15, the State Government has been conferred with the power to frame rules. It is in exercise of the said power that the MMC Rules were framed. The Rules contain elaborate provisions relating to the manner in which quarrying leases are to be granted and the conditions subject to which the operations are to be carried out. Since all aspects of mining and extraction of minor minerals have been dealt with exhaustively in the Act and the Rules thereunder, it is contended that no other law has any application to the said activities after coming into force of the said Act and the Rules. It is further contended that, in view of Sections 2, 9 and 15 read conjunctively the State has no power to demand and collect seignorage as proposed to be done in the present case. 8. The contentions of the State that the seignorage was being collected under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules thereunder is attacked by pointing out that, the provisions of the said enactment have been superseded by the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules. It is further contended that, the said Act would apply only to persons who are in unauthorised occupation of Government lands. It is further contended that, the said Act would apply only to persons who are in unauthorised occupation of Government lands. The appellants being persons who are in possession of the Government lands on the strength of a valid lease executed by the Government, they are persons whose possession could be described only as lawful. It is also contended that, the assessment of seignorage made by the Tahsildar as well as the Geologist is wrong. On the above ground, it is next contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with and set aside. 9. Per contra, the Additional Advocate General who represents the respondents contends that, the Government as the owner of the land in question has the inherent right to impose conditions as deemed fit, while permitting a person to use the said land for any purpose or to extract any article from it. Such right is tracable to the right of ownership and is available to all owners of lands. Therefore, the Government cannot be denied the said right. It is contended that had the lease been sought from a private land owner he would have insisted upon some payment as compensation for the grant of permission to extract granite or to conduct quarrying operations. In exercise of the said power, the State had while granting permission as per exhibit P1 order that forms part of the lease agreement stipulated a condition that seignorage as and when demanded would have to be paid. It was accepting the said condition that the appellants had taken possession of the Government land and conducted quarrying operations. Therefore, it is contended that they are estopped from questioning the said condition. 10. It is next contended that, Rule 29 of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, stipulates payment of royalty, surface rent and dead rent. In addition, Sub Rule 2 of Rule 29 confers power on the State to include special conditions. Payment of seignorage is a special condition in terms of the said provision. 11. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the MMDR Act has not taken away all the powers that the State had in respect of land or minor minerals. In addition, Sub Rule 2 of Rule 29 confers power on the State to include special conditions. Payment of seignorage is a special condition in terms of the said provision. 11. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the MMDR Act has not taken away all the powers that the State had in respect of land or minor minerals. By virtue of Section 15, it is contended that the power to regulate and permit extraction of minor minerals has been conferred on the State even as per the provisions of the MMDR Act. In view of the above, it is contended that, the Writ Petitions have been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Another contention put forward is that the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules apply not merely to persons who are in unauthorised occupation of government lands but also to persons who have been permitted to be in possession of Government lands or to undertake any activity thereon. Reliance is placed on Section 6 of the Land Conservancy Act and Rule 14 of the Land Conservancy Rules to point out that, the permission to occupy the Government land is granted and an application for such permission is considered under the said provisions. The learned Additional Advocate General also places reliance on Rule 17 of the Land Conservancy Rules to point out that levy and collection of seigniorage is permitted thereunder. Since the impugned actions are supported by the provisions of law, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions. 13. Additional Advocate General also places reliance on a number of decisions of the Apex Court to contend that the power of the State under Entry 18, List II and the taxing power under entry 49 thereof confer adequate powers on the State to levy and collect the seignorage that has been demanded. It is further contended that, seignorage is not a tax but only a compensation for extraction of rock from the property of the Government. Therefore, even without reference to the power to tax, such levying is permissible. On the above grounds, the learned Additional Advocate General seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeals. 14. Heard. The question that essentially arises for consideration is whether the State is entitled to levy and recover seignorage from the appellants? 15. Therefore, even without reference to the power to tax, such levying is permissible. On the above grounds, the learned Additional Advocate General seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeals. 14. Heard. The question that essentially arises for consideration is whether the State is entitled to levy and recover seignorage from the appellants? 15. The contention is that, there is no provision of law authorising recovery of seigniorage in addition to the Royalty, Dead Rent and Surface Rent that is authorised to be recovered as per the provisions of the MMC Rules. Inasmuch as there is no provision authorising recovery of seignorage from the petitioners, it is contended that the impugned orders assessing the petitioners to seigniorage has to be interfered with and set aside. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the State has the power to recover the disputed amount. 16. The legislative competence in respect of mines and minerals has been divided among the Centre and the States by the entries in the State list and Centre list of the VIIth schedule. Entries 53 and 54, list I that deals with the power of the Centre reads as under : 53. Regulation and development of oil fields and mineral oil resources; petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable. 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. 17. Entry 23 list II deals with the power of the State which 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. 18. Entry 54 list I specifies that regulation of mines and mineral development shall be with the Centre to the extent declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest. 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. 18. Entry 54 list I specifies that regulation of mines and mineral development shall be with the Centre to the extent declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest. Entry 23 list II makes the power of the State subject to the provisions of list I. In other words, though the State has the power to regulate the mines and minor mineral development, the said power is subject to any law made by the Centre in exercise of the power under Entry 54 of list I. Therefore, the power of the State to legislate on matters relating to mines and mineral development shall be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Central law in the said regard. 19. In exercise of the power under Entry 54 list I the MMDR Act has been enacted. Section 2 of the said act is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference. 2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union Control.-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. 20. It has been declared by the above provision that the Union had taken under its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals “to the extent” provided in the said enactment. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain the extent to which the control has been taken over by the Centre. Section 15 of the MMDR Act confers power on the State to frame Rules for regulating the grant of quarrying leases, mining leases etc. Section 15 being relevant in the context is extracted hereinbelow:- 15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.--(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Section 15 being relevant in the context is extracted hereinbelow:- 15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.--(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. (1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paid therefor; (b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgment of the receipt of any such applications may be sent; (c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received within the same day; (d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed; (e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions; (f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations; (g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable; (h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations; (i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease; (j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred; (k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads, power transmission lines, tramways, railways, aerial ropeways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or other mineral concession; (l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act; (m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted; (n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revisions of any order passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefor, and the powers of the revisional authority; and (o) any other matter which is to be, or may be prescribed. (2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a State Government regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue in force. (3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals: Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of three years. (4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act for the following, namely:- (a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under sub-section (2) of Section 9B; (b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; and (c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by concession-holders of minor minerals under Section 15A. 15A. Power of State Government to collect funds for District Mineral Foundation in case of minor minerals.--The State Government may prescribe the payment by all holders of concessions related to minor minerals of amounts to the District Mineral Foundation of the district in which the mining operations are carried on. 21. The matters with respect to which the State has been empowered to frame rules has been enumerated in the above provision. Sub section 3 empowers the state to frame Rules regarding demand of royalty and dead rent. It is in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 that the MMC Rules have been framed. Rule 29 of the said Rules provides for payments to be made under the said Rules. Rule 29 lays down the conditions subject to which quarrying leases are to be granted. It is in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 that the MMC Rules have been framed. Rule 29 of the said Rules provides for payments to be made under the said Rules. Rule 29 lays down the conditions subject to which quarrying leases are to be granted. Rule 29(1)(c) stipulates payment of royalty while payment of dead rent is stipulated by Rule 29(1)(d) and surface rent by Rule 29(1)(e). We notice that, the appellants have no dispute regarding payment of the said amounts stipulated by the MMC Rules. The dispute in this case is confined only to payment of the seignorage that is demanded by the State in addition to the payments stipulated by the MMC Rules referred to above. 22. Seignorage is demanded by the State under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules thereunder. The Kerala Land conservancy Act was enacted in the year 1957 and has come into force on 15.01.1958. The Act was brought into force with the object of checking the unauthorised occupation of Government lands and to make provision for matters incidental or connected thereto. The Land Conservancy Act is an enactment that prohibits unauthorised occupation of Government lands and makes provision for eviction of unauthorised occupants from government lands. The legislative entry to which the competence to enact the said law is traceable is entry 18 list II which reads as follows. 18. Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. 23. Section 6 of the said enactment reads as follows:- 6. Earth, metal, laterite, lime-shell etc., not to be removed from land which is property of Government without permit.--(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to destroy, remove or appropriate for himself earth, sand, metal, laterite, lime-shell or such other articles of value as may be notified by the Government from any land which is the property of Government, whether a Poramboke or not, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the Government or such officer of the Government as may be empowered in that behalf and on payment of compensation at the rate prescribed under sub-section (2). (2) The Government may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, prescribe the rate at which compensation shall be payable for earth, sand, metal, laterite, lime-shell or other notified articles of value destroyed, removed or appropriated from land which is the property of Government. (3) Whoever unauthorisedly destroys, removes or appropriates for himself metal, laterite, lime-shell or other notified articles of value from any land which is the property of Government, whether a poramboke or not, shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding fifty rupees as may be imposed by the Collector and shall also be liable to pay by way of damages an amount equivalent to the compensation which would have been payable if sub-section (2) were applicable thereto. (3A) Whoever unauthorisedly destroys, removes or appropriates for himself earth or sand from any land which is the property of Government, whether a poramobke or not, shall be liable to pay such fine, – (a) not exceeding one hundred rupees in the case of a first offence; or (b) not exceeding two hundred rupees in the case of a second or subsequent offence as may be imposed by the Collector and shall also be liable to pay way of damages an amount equivalent to the compensation which would have been payable if sub-section (2) were applicable thereto. (3B) Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable under sub-section (3A) shall be liable to pay such fine,-- (a) not exceeding one hundred rupees where the offence abetted is a first offence; and (b) not exceeding two hundred rupees where the offence abetted is a second or subsequent offence; as may be imposed by the Collector. (4) The Government may remit in whole or in part the compensation, fine or damages payable under this Section,- (a) in favour of any agriculturist or agricultural labourer if the earth, sand, metal laterite, lime-shell or other notified articles of value destroyed, removed or appropriated is for bonafide agricultural purposes, or (b) in favour of a co-operative society. Explanation.--For the purpose of clause (a) “agricultural labourer” means a person whose principal means of livelihood is the income he gets as wages in connection with the agricultural operations he performs. 24. Explanation.--For the purpose of clause (a) “agricultural labourer” means a person whose principal means of livelihood is the income he gets as wages in connection with the agricultural operations he performs. 24. According to the learned Advocate General Section 6(1) prohibits extraction and removal of earth, sand, metal laterite, lime-shell or such other articles from Government lands except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the Government or such Officer who may be empowered for such purpose. Therefore, it is contended that, in exercise of the said power, to permit quarrying operations, a lease is executed. Such permit is to be granted “on payment of compensation” at the rate prescribed under sub section 2. Therefore, it is contended that payment of compensation could also be stipulated in exercise of the said power. Our attention is drawn to Rules 14 to 26 of the Land Conservancy Rules to point out that elaborate procedure has been stipulated by the said Rules for the grant of permit. Reliance is placed on Rule 17 to point out that the said provision permits levy and recovery of seignorage as sought to be done in the present case. 25. Advocate James Koshy who appears for the appellants contends that with the enactment of the MMDR Act, the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act have become inapplicable to stone quarries of the like conducted by the appellants herein. By the exercise of the power under Entry 54 of List II to enact the MMDR Act, the Central Government has taken away the power of the State to legislate with respect to the operation of quarries. In exercise of the power to frame rules contained in Section 15 of the MMDR Act, the State has framed the MMC Rules which exhaustively deals with all the aspects relating to the giving on lease and operating of stone quarries. It cannot thereafter be contended that, the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules thereunder would also operate in addition to the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules, it is pointed out. 26. It cannot thereafter be contended that, the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules thereunder would also operate in addition to the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules, it is pointed out. 26. In the above context, it is necessary to take note of the fact that the power of the State under Entry 18 List II encompasses all the aspects of land for the reason that, the Entry opens with the word land and then goes on to qualify the same by providing that the power would include right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. The expressions “right in or over land” would take within its sweep all conceivable rights in respect of lands. Therefore, the State would have the power to legislate in respect of all rights in or over land. The said power is distinct and separate from the power to legislate contained in Entry 23 of the same list in respect of mines and mineral development which has been made subject to entry 54 list II. It is true that in exercise of the power under Entry 54 List II the Centre have enacted the MMDR Act declaring by the said Law in public interest that mines and mineral development shall be regulated by the Centre, to the extent provided therein. It is clear from Section 2 of the MMDR Act that the declaration therein is also qualified by the expression “to the extent herein after provided”. It is in the above context that Section 15 is relevant. As per Section 15, the power to frame Rules “for regulating the quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith” has been conferred on the State. The resultant position therefore is that though the Centre had by the MMDR Act taken upon itself the power to regulate mining and mineral development, in so far as the minor minerals are concerned, the said power has been given back to the State. In other words, power of the Centre in respect of minor minerals including stone quarries has come to be invested in the state, without being eclipsed by the other provisions of the MMDR Act. In other words, power of the Centre in respect of minor minerals including stone quarries has come to be invested in the state, without being eclipsed by the other provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the power of the State to legislate provided by Entry 23 in List II of the Constitution remains intact in respect of the provisions of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the provisions of the MMC Rules cannot be construed as affecting in any manner the validity or the efficacy of the Land Conservancy Act or the Rules thereunder. As a result, apart from the fact that the regulation of minor minerals and right to quarry or extract such minerals has been conferred on the State by the MMDR Act, by virtue of Entry 18 list II the State continues to have the power to legislate upon land and all aspects relating thereto also. Therefore, the contention that with the enactment of the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules, the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and Land Conservancy Rules have become ineffective and incapable of being implemented cannot be accepted. We accordingly reject those contentions. 27. Another contention that is put forward is that, there is no provision either under the Land Conservancy Act or the Land Conservancy Rules permitting the levy and recovery of seignorage as sought to be done by the impugned proceedings. As already noticed above, Rule 17 of the Land Conservancy Rules permits the levy of seignorage. The power to levy and recover compensation is available from a conjoint reading of Section 6(1) of the Land Conservancy Act and Rule 17 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules. It is also necessary to note that Rule 29(2)(c) empowers the State Government to insist on or impose any other special conditions as may be specified. Apart from the above, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the seignorage is demanded and recovered as compensation for permitting the petitioners to work the quarry and to extract stone therefrom. Such a right is available to every owner of a land who may permit a third party exploit his land thereby reducing the utility thereof. Therefore, we are not satisfied that there is any merit in the contention that levy and collection of seignorage by the impugned proceedings is not authorised by law. 28. Such a right is available to every owner of a land who may permit a third party exploit his land thereby reducing the utility thereof. Therefore, we are not satisfied that there is any merit in the contention that levy and collection of seignorage by the impugned proceedings is not authorised by law. 28. We further take note of the fact that it has been stipulated in the Government Order exhibit P1 by Clause 11 that the lessee would have to pay seingnorage on demand by the Revenue Authority. It was subject to the said clause in the order dated 22.08.2007 that the petitioners had taken the land on lease. They have thereafter worked the quarries all these years. It is not open to them at this length of time, after having taking advantage of the other clauses in the order and the lease agreements, to turn around and challenge the clause that appears to be onerous to them. Though it is contended that they have been paying all the other charges including royalty, dead rent and surface rent thereby disentitling the State from charging seignorage, for the various reasons already noted above, the levy and collection of seignorage being authorised by law, cannot be said to be illegal. 29. Though the learned Advocate General has placed reliance on a number of decisions to point out that the State was within its rights to impose special conditions as deemed fit, we do not consider it necessary to go into the decisions in detail in view of the findings arrived at as above. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We find no infirmity therein warranting an interference therewith in appeal. The learned Single Judge has set aside the quantification that has been made in the impugned orders and directed the seignorage to be quantified afresh. We find that apart from the said relief, the appellants are not entitled to any other relief in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Appeals are dismissed.