Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1907 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2025-09-16

ARUN KUMAR RAI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. Al the writ petitions since are having the common issues and, as such, were directed to the heard together and accordingly listed together which have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs :- Prayer made in W.P. (C) No. 4478 of 2019 “a) For issuance appropriate writ(s)/order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order issued vide letter no. 409 dated 14/03/2019 (Annexure- 5), whereby and whereunder the respondent no.3 (District Mining Officer, Ramgarh) has directed the petitioner-company to pay the fixed rent with interest for Laiyo Colliery Area, which is closed colliery from the year before 2014 itself as per the respondents themselves. b) Pass such other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. c) During the pendency of this writ petition, order issued vide letter no.- 409 dated 14/03/2019 (Annexure-5), passed by respondent no.3 (District Mining Officer, Ramgarh) directing the petitioner Company to deposit the fixed rent, may be stayed/kept in abeyance and respondents be restrained to proceed further in the matter or to take any coercive steps against the petitioner-Company.” Prayer made in W.P. (C) No. 269 of 2019 “a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) setting aside the order dated 07.07.2000 (Annexure 2) passed by respondent No.5 in Certificate Case No.109/90-91, whereby and whereunder after rejecting the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, directed the petitioner to pay the entire demanded amount without making any determination. b) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/, direction(s) setting aside the order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No.3 in Certificate Appeal No.64/2005, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal.” Prayer made in W.P. (C) No. 4491 of 2019 “a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order issued vide letter no. 407 dated 14/03/2019 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder the respondent no.-3 (District Mining Officer, Ramgarh) has directed the petitioner-company to pay the fixed rent with interest for Ara Colliery Area, which is closed colliery from the year before 2014 itself themselves as per the respondents. 407 dated 14/03/2019 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder the respondent no.-3 (District Mining Officer, Ramgarh) has directed the petitioner-company to pay the fixed rent with interest for Ara Colliery Area, which is closed colliery from the year before 2014 itself themselves as per the respondents. b) Pass such other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. c) During the pendency of this writ petition, order issued vide letter no.- 407 dated 14/03/2019 (Annexure-5), passed by respondent no.3 (District Mining Officer, Ramgarh) directing the petitioner Company to deposit the fixed rent, may be stayed/kept in and respondents be abeyance restrained to proceed further in the matter or to take any coercive steps against the petitioner-Company.” Prayer made in W.P. (C) No. 1847 of 2022 “a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing Letter No. 1109/Mining, Hazaribagh dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure 2) issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder he has demanded an amount of Rs.9,76,560/- towards dead-rent. b) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing Letter No.332/Mining, Hazaribagh dated 29.04.2020 (Annexure 3) whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has raised a demand of Rs.15,89,460/- towards dead-rent for the period 2016-18. c) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing the demand of Rs.29,56,396.00/- vide demand notice as contained under Notice No. 986 dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure 4) addressed to Project Officer, Tapin South Project of M/s. CCL Charhi Area, Hazaribagh; issued by the Certificate Officer (Mining), Hazaribagh under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in Certificate Case No 06/2021-2022. d) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing of entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 06/2021-2022 initiated under Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 as the land has been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.” Factual Matrix 3. Since facts of all the aforesaid writ petitions are almost similar, therefore, the facts of lead case, i.e., W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019 are being referred herein:- It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner - Company is mainly engaged in the mining of coal and for the purpose of said business, the petitioner -Company has acquired mines under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 as well as has developed various mines after acquiring land under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. 4. 4. The petitioner Company, for the purpose of establishing mines within West Bokaro area of the petitioner- Company, had acquired certain lands under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 vide Notification bearing S.O. No. 2082 dated 30/06/1981 issued by the Central Government. 5. The petitioner Company had also acquired land for the purpose of establishing mines within Laiyo area of the petitioner-Company, under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 vide Notification bearing S.O. No.288 dated 04/09/1965 and vide Notification bearing S.O. No.1754 dated 15/05/1996 issued by the Central Government. 6. The Government of Bihar has already declared by way of declaration that the particular land has been acquired by the Government of India vide letter no. 490 dated 14.11.1981 and one notification has been also issued vide Notification No. 2246 dated 19.10.1989 by the State of Bihar. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that from bare perusal of Section 10 and Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, it shall become apparent that on publication of the notification in the Official Gazette of the Declaration under Section 9 of the Act, the land or the right in or over the land, as the case may be, vests absolutely with the Central Government/ Government Company free from all encumbrances. Only in cases where rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government has been acquired, the Central Government or the Government Company, as the case may be, is deemed to be the lessee for the remaining period of the lease. It has been stated that the land which has been acquired vide S.O. No. 3154, dated 10.08.1976, did not include subsisting mining lease. These lands at the relevant time were virgin lands. 8. It has been stated that the land which has been acquired vide S.O. No. 3154, dated 10.08.1976, did not include subsisting mining lease. These lands at the relevant time were virgin lands. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 18 -A of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over land belonging to State Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section 11, the Central Government or the company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government to such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by lessee, had such land or rights been under mining lease granted by the State Government. 9. Though the State Government is neither a lessor nor the Central Government or the Government Company who develops some mines after acquiring a piece of land under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is a lessee, however, still, the Central Government or the Government Company, as the case may be, with respect to the land belonging to the State Government which has been acquired is liable to pay such sum of amount, as would have been payable as royalty by lessee, had such land or right been under the mining lease granted by the State Government. Thus, apparently, if the land acquired does not belong to the State Government and is a raiyati land, then such amount is not required to be paid. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.-3, without considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, has passed an order dated 14.03.2109 holding the petitioner company to be liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,73,80,624.64 (in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019). 11. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the petitioner Company had acquired certain lands under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for the purpose of establishing mine/mining of coal. 12. 11. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the petitioner Company had acquired certain lands under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for the purpose of establishing mine/mining of coal. 12. The contention of the petitioner is that Section 10 and Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 provide that on publication of the notification in the Official Gazette of the Declaration under Section 9 of the Act, the land or the right in or over the land, vests absolutely with the Central Government/Government Company free from all encumbrances. Only in cases where rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government to any person are acquired under this Act has been acquired the Central Government or the Government Company, as the case may be, is deemed to be the lessee for the remaining period of the lease and the land which has been acquired vide S.O. No. 3154, dated 10.08.1976, did not include subsisting mining lease. 13. Further, Section 18 -A of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over to State belonging land Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section 11, the Central Government or the company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government to such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by a lessee, had such land or rights been under mining lease granted by the State Government. 14. But, the Respondent No.-3, without considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, has passed an order dated 14.03.2019 holding the petitioner company to be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,73,80,624.64 (in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019) against which the present writ petition has been filed. 15. Almost same is the situation so far as other three writ petitions are concerned as in the W.P.(C) 4491 of 2019, the letter No.407 dated 14.03.2019 issued by District Mining Officer, Ramgarh demanding surface rent along with interest in Ara Colliery Area has been challenged. 15. Almost same is the situation so far as other three writ petitions are concerned as in the W.P.(C) 4491 of 2019, the letter No.407 dated 14.03.2019 issued by District Mining Officer, Ramgarh demanding surface rent along with interest in Ara Colliery Area has been challenged. Further in W.P.(C) 1847 of 2022 letter no.1109/ Mining, Hazaribagh dated 27.11.2019 demanding dead rent with respect to Tapin South project, Charhi, has been challenged. 16. Herein the reference of the notification through which the land in question have been acquired is being depicted in tabular Form which are as under: W.P. (C) 4478 of 2019 S. No. NOTIFICATION/S.O. No. Dated Area (H) (i) S.O. No. 2082 30.06.1981 1242.36 (ii) S.O. No. 1754 15.05.1996 339.93 (iii) Notification No. 28 04.09.1965 220.73 W.P. (C) 4491 of 2019 S. No. NOTIFICATION/S.O. No. Dated Area (i) S.O. No. 1104E 15.04.2014 481.93 (Total) (ii) S.O. No. 3665 26.08.1989 ---- W.P. (C) 1847 of 2022 S.N. NOTIFICATION/S.O. No. Dated Area (i) S.O. No. 1687 13.09.1983 4433.29 (Total) 17. Further, WP(C)No. 269 of 2019 has been filed by the Petitioner-CCL seeking quashing of the order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the Respondent-State in Certificate Case No. 109/90-91, which had been initiated for realization of Surface Rent with respect to the lands which has vested with the Govt. Company under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. By the said order, the objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was rejected, and the Petitioner-CCL was directed to pay the entire demanded amount without any determination. The petition further seeks setting aside of the appellate order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Certificate Appeal No. 64/2005, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Petitioner-CCL was dismissed. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-CCL has submitted that the lands since have been acquired under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1957) and, as such, the same has been vested upon the Central Government and once it has been vested upon the Central Government then no subsisting right is available for the State Government to make any demand considering the Central Government or the Government Company like that of the writ petitioner, to be the deemed lessee. 19. 19. It has been contended that after the declaration of the acquisition and the gazette notification issued under Section 10 (1) of the Act, 1957 in favour of the Central Government, the land has been vested free from any encumbrances and subsequent thereto, in view of the notification issued under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1957, the land has been vested upon the Government Company, the writ petitioner herein. 20. The contention has been raised that at the time when the land was vested upon the Central Government/ Government Company, no subsisting right of lease was existing, as such, it is not a case where the Government Company will be said to be deemed lessee of the State Government in the light of the provision as provided under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1957. 21. It has been contended that bare perusal of Section 18 -A would show that the Central Government or the Government Company "may pay" to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by lessees had such lands or rights been under mining lease granted to the State Government. The use of word "may" make it clear that amount which is paid under Section 18 -A is firstly discretionary and, secondly, as will be apparent from bare perusal of the object of the Amending Act, is on ex-gratia basis. However, the State Government all of a sudden started insisting for payment of surface rent and dead-rent which has given rise to the instant litigations. 22. Learned counsel has submitted that the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 343 , therefore, will not be applicable on the premise of the factual aspect involved in the present case, since, in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), the factual aspect was with respect to the issue of premium and compensation and has been dealt with the implication in a case of subsisting right at the time of vesting of the land in favour of the Central Government or the Government Company, therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) will not be applicable herein. 23. (Supra) will not be applicable herein. 23. It has been contended that the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4092 , rather will be applicable wherein the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has been distinguished on the facts of the case. 24. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the demand so raised on behalf of the State, therefore, requires interference since it has been issued without any jurisdiction conferred upon the State after vesting of the land in the Government Company under Section 10 (1) read with Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1957. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent- State 25. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, has submitted by referring to the provision as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1957 that the vesting as notified by virtue of the provision as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1957 will be of the land or the rights in or over the land, meaning thereby, the land which has been acquired or the rights in or over the land, all will come under the fold of Section 10 of the Act, 1957. 26. The contention has been raised that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) wherein by taking the aid of insertion of the provision by way of amendment of Section 18 -A of the Act, 1957, which speaks with respect to payment to State Government in lieu of royalty and by taking into consideration the implication of Section 18 -A of the Act, 1957, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid provision in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), has held the Government Company, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited in the said case, to be the deemed lessee and thereby upheld the demand raised by the State upholding the view taken by the High Court of Orissa. 27. Learned Advocate General, in view of the aforesaid submission, has submitted that the demand, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis 28. (Supra), has held the Government Company, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited in the said case, to be the deemed lessee and thereby upheld the demand raised by the State upholding the view taken by the High Court of Orissa. 27. Learned Advocate General, in view of the aforesaid submission, has submitted that the demand, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis 28. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit and the provision as contained under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) and State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra). 29. This Court, on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the parties, needs to consider following issues :- (i) Whether the State can be said to be empowered to issue demand if the land has been vested free from all incumbrances without any subsisting right of lease in favour of any party at the time of vesting under the notification of Section 9 of the Act, 1957? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) will be applicable or the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable? 30. Both the issues since are interlinked and, as such, are being taken up together for their consideration. 31. But before considering the said issues, the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (in short Act 1957) implemented with effect from 8 th June, 1957 by virtue of Act No.20 of 1957 needs to be referred herein which has been enacted to establish in the economic interest of India, greater public control over the coal mining industry and its development by providing for the acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land, for the extinguishment or modification of such rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease, licence or otherwise, and for matters connected therewith. 32. 32. Section 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18-A of Act 1957 are having bearing upon the issues and, as such the same are being referred herein :- 4. Preliminary notification respecting intention to prospect for coal in any area and powers of competent authorities thereupon .— (1) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from land in any locality, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land and state its approximate area. (3) On the issue of a notification under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the competent authority and for his servants and workmen— (a) to enter upon and survey any land in such locality; (b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; (c) to do all other acts necessary to prospect for coal in the land; (d) to set out the boundaries of the land in which prospecting is proposed to be done and the intended line of the work, if any, proposed to be made thereon; (e) to mark such boundaries and line by placing marks; (f) where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless 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. (4) In issuing a notification under this section the Central Government shall exclude therefrom that portion of any land in which coal mining operations are actually being carried on in conformity with the provisions of any enactment, rule or order for the time being in force or any premises on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of coal obtained as a result of such operations is being carried on are situate. 5. 5. Effect of notification on prospecting licences and mining leases .—On the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 in respect of any land— (a) any prospecting licence 1 which authorises any person to prospect for coal or any other mineral in the land shall cease to have effect; (b) any mining lease 2 *** shall, in so far as it authorises the lessee or any person claiming through him to undertake any operation in the land, cease to have effect for so long as the notification under that sub-section is in force. 6. Compensation for any necessary damage done under section 4 .— (1) Whenever any action of the nature described in sub-section (3) of section 4 is to be taken, the competent authority shall, before or at the time such action is taken, pay or tender payment for all necessary damage which is likely to be caused, and in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered or as to the person to whom it should be paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Central Government, and the decision of the Central Government shall be final. (2) The fact that there exists any such dispute as is referred to in this section shall not be a bar to action under sub-section (3) of section 4. 7. Power to acquire land or rights in or over land notified under section 4 .— (1) If the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in the whole or any part of the land notified under sub-section (1) of section 4, it may, within a period of two years from the date of the said notification or within such further period not exceeding one year in the aggregate as the Central Government may specify in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, give notice of its intention to acquire the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land, as the case may be. (2) If no notice to acquire the land or any rights in or over such land is given under sub-section (1) within the period allowed thereunder, the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 shall cease to have effect on the expiration of three years from the date thereof. 8. (2) If no notice to acquire the land or any rights in or over such land is given under sub-section (1) within the period allowed thereunder, the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 shall cease to have effect on the expiration of three years from the date thereof. 8. Objections to acquisition .— (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land. Explanation.—It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub- section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act. 9. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act. 9. Declaration of acquisition .— (1) When the Central Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 8 that any land or any rights in or over such land should be acquired, a declaration shall be made by it to that effect, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land, or of rights in or over such land, covered by the same notification under sub-section (1) of section 7, irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under sub-section (2) of section 8: Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land, or rights in or over such land, covered by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 7, issued after the commencement of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Amendment and Validation Act, 1971 (54 of 1971), shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the said notification: Provided further that, where a declaration relates to any land or to any rights in or over land belonging to a State Government which has or have not been leased out, no such declaration shall be made except after previous consultation with the State Government. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette: (a) in any case where land is to be acquired, shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate and its approximate area; and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected; (b) in any case where rights in or over such land are to be acquired, shall state the nature and extent of the rights in addition to the matters relating to the land specified in clause (a); and a copy of every such declaration shall be sent to the State Government concerned. 10. 10. Vesting of land or rights in Central Government .— (1) On the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under section 9, the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (2) Where the rights under any mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by a State Government to any person are acquired under this Act, the Central Government shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Central Government, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules. 11. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company .— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply, or has complied, with such terms and conditions as the Central Government may think fit to impose, direct, by order in writing, that the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government under section 10 or continuing to so vest, vest in the Government company either on the date of publication of the declaration or on such other date as may be specified in the direction. (2) Where the rights under any mining lease acquired under this Act vest in a Government company under sub-section (1), the Government company shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Government company, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules; and all the rights and liabilities of the Central Government in relation to the lease or the land covered by it shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the rights and liabilities of the Government company. 18A. 18A. Payment to State Governments in lieu of royalty .—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over land belonging to a State Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section 11, the Central Government or the Company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by a lessee had such land or rights been under a mining lease granted by the State Government.” 33. It is, thus, evident from the provision as contained under the Act, 1957 that the declaration of acquisition is to be issued under Section 9 . 34. Section 10 comprises of two provisions, Sub-Section (1) thereof provides that on the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under section 9, the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that where the rights under any mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by a State Government to any person are acquired under this Act, the Central Government shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Central Government, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules. 35. 35. The provision of Section 10 therefore, very specifically clarifies that the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, meaning thereby, eventualities have been referred therein, i.e. the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances while Sub-section (2) provides that where the rights under any mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by a State Government to any person, meaning thereby, at the time of vesting, if the lease has been granted by the State to any person then the Central Government shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Central Government, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules. 36. Section 11 confers power upon the Central Government to direct vesting of land or the rights in a Government Company if the Central Government is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply, or has complied, with such terms and conditions as the Central Government may think fit to impose, direct, by order in writing, that the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government under section 10 or continuing to so vest, vest in the Government company either on the date of publication of the declaration or on such other date as may be specified in the direction. 37. 37. Sub-section (2) of the Section 11 provides that where the rights under any mining lease acquired under this Act vest in a Government company under sub-section (1), the Government company shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Government company, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules; and all the rights and liabilities of the Central Government in relation to the lease or the land covered by it shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the rights and liabilities of the Government company. 38. Section 10 thus, provides that what would be the situation of the land if the land has been vested upon the Central Government while Section 11 stipulates that if the Central Government is satisfied that the Government Company is willing to comply or has complied then the vesting will be in favour of the Government Company. The pari materia provision is there under Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 as that of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 thereof. 39. Section 18A has been inserted in the Act on the premise of the objective and dealing with the representation of the State Government as per the object of the Act, 1957, for ready reference the same is being referred herein:- "Act 54 of 1971 - The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) hereinafter referred to as the Coal Bearing Areas Act) provides inter alia for the acquisition by the Central Government of virgin lands, including underground minerals, or rights in or over such lands. Under the Explanation to clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 13, which provides that the value of any minerals lying in the land will not be taken into consideration in determining the market value of any land no compensation is payable to the State Governments in respect of the underground minerals which also vest in the Central Government when the land is acquired by the Central Government. The State Government have been representing from time to time that this results in their being deprived of large sums by way of revenue. The State Government have been representing from time to time that this results in their being deprived of large sums by way of revenue. The Central Government has considered the representations of the State Government and has decided that the State Governments should be paid purely on an ex gratia basis such sums as they would have been entitled to receive by way of royalty. had mining leases been granted in respect of the areas acquired. It is now proposed to amend the Coal Bearing Areas Act to make such payments obligatory." 40. It is evident from the aforesaid object that the same has been considered by the legislature based upon the representation made by the State Government from time to time that this result in their being deprived of large sums by way of revenue. The Central Government has considered the representations of the State Government and has decided that the State Governments should be paid purely on an ex- gratia basis such sums as they would have been entitled to receive by way of royalty, had mining leases been granted in respect of the areas acquired. 41. The Central Government, in view of the aforesaid consideration, has inserted Section 18A which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over land belonging to a State Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section 11, the Central Government or the Company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by a lessee had such land or rights been under a mining lease granted by the State Government. 42. The emphasis of argument advanced on behalf of the State is the provision as contained under Section 18A of the Act, 1957. 43. Learned Advocate General, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra). 44. We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. 43. Learned Advocate General, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra). 44. We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) along with the factual aspect narrated in para 2 to 5, for ready reference the factual aspect is being referred herein which is having bearing in the consideration of the issue pertaining to the applicability of the judgments as per the Issue No.(ii) framed hereinabove:- “ 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under : That the lands in question owned by the State Government of Odisha came to be acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1957 Act”). That thereafter, vide order dated 4-9-1981 and in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the 1957 Act with respect to some lands acquired, the Central Government directed that the rights in or over the lands vested absolutely in the Central Government, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, under sub-section (1) of Section 10 , vest in Western Coalfields Limited. 3. That vide order dated 15-12-1988, with respect to some other lands acquired by the Central Government and in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the 1957 Act, the Central Government directed that the said lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from 16-5-1987 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the government company, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. That is how, the appellant acquired the lands and rights over the lands in question. That the respondent issued the demand notice dated 15-3-1984 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation. 4. That various similar demand notices were issued for area of non-forest government land and revenue forest land. The demands were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition before the High Court. 5. 70 lakhs towards premium for government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation. 4. That various similar demand notices were issued for area of non-forest government land and revenue forest land. The demands were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition before the High Court. 5. Before the High Court, Section 18 -A of the 1957 Act was pressed into service by the appellant herein and it was submitted that in view of the notification as the lands and rights on the lands absolutely vested in the Central Government thereafter, the State Government is not entitled to any compensation with respect to the lands so acquired/vested except the royalty leviable under Section 18 - A of the 1957 Act. By the impugned judgment and order [Mahanadi Coalfields v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 512] the High Court has interpreted Section 2(d) of the 1957 Act and has observed that the State Government can be said to be person interested in land and therefore, entitled to the compensation over and above in lieu of losing the rights over the land. That thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order [Mahanadi Coalfields v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 512] the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has confirmed the demand(s).” 45. It is evident from the factual aspect of the said case that the land in question owned by the State Government of Orissa had been acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 and the Government thereafter vide order dated 04.09.1981 and in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957 with respect to some land acquired, the Central Government directed that the rights in or over the lands vested absolutely in the Central Government, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 , vest in the Western Coalfields Limited. Vide order dated 15.12.1988, with respect to some other lands acquired by the Central Government and in exercise of powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957, the Central Government directed that the said lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from 16.05.1987 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The appellant thereby has acquired the lands and rights over the lands in question. The respondent issued the demand notice dated 15.03.1984 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for Government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation . Various similar demand notices were issued for area of Non-Forest Government land and Revenue Forest land. The said demands had been challenged before the High Court. The High Court has passed order upholding the said demands. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the premise of applicability of the provision of Section 18 A, for ready reference, the relevant part of the aforesaid judgment as referred in paragraph 16 and 18 is being referred herein :- “ 16. Now so far as the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the Government company in whose favour the order is passed under Section 11 after which the land is vested absolutely with the Central Government except the amount of royalty as per Section 18 -A of the Act, the Government company is not liable to pay any amount is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty. Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question. 18. In that view of the matter over and above the amount of royalty the coal company/Government company shall be liable to pay the compensation and surface land rent, etc., Therefore, the High Court is absolutely justified in confirming the respective demand(s). The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation. If the submission made on behalf of the appellant is accepted in that case nothing would be paid towards the lands except the amount of royalty under Section 18 (a) of the Act, which is for extraction of minerals.” 46. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the light of the fact that the Central Government is liable to make payment of compensation and surface land rent, etc. has been pleased to uphold the view taken by the High Court. 47. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the light of the fact that the Central Government is liable to make payment of compensation and surface land rent, etc. has been pleased to uphold the view taken by the High Court. 47. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that the validity of the Act, 1957 has been raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Union of India , 1962 SCC OnLine SC 27 wherein a suit by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India has been preferred for a declaration that the Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to acquire land and rights in or over land, which are vested in a State, and that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (20 of 1957) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act- enacted by the Parliament, and particularly Sections 4 and 7 thereof, were ultra vires; the legislative competence of Parliament, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of those sections of the Act in respect of the coal-bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. 48. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration that the suit raises questions of great public importance, bearing on the interpretation of quite a large number of the Articles of the Constitution and in view of the importance of the questions raised in this litigation, issued notices to all the Advocate Generals of the States of India. In pursuance of that notice, the States of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Madras, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have appeared. 49. The Hon’ble Apex Court, taking into consideration the legislative competence, has upheld the validity of the Act 1957 in particular Sections 4 and 7 and has observed that the power to legislate for regulation and development of mines and minerals being under the control of the Union, would by necessary implication include the power to acquire mines and minerals, thereby upholding the constitutional validity of CBA, 1957. 50. 50. We have also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) and after going through the factual aspect, as would be evident from the reference made therein at paragraph 3, that on 23.12.1980, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 of its intention to acquire the lands admeasuring 1657.16 hectares (approximately) as specified in the Schedule, and consequently, issued a declaration on 17.11.1981 acquiring the said land under Section 9 of CBA, 1957. The said declaration was published in the Gazette of India, dated 05.12.1981, vesting the land and rights described in the Schedule appended to the abovementioned notification absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 10 (1) of the CBA, 1957. Further, in exercise of powers under Section 11 (1) of CBA, 1957, the Union Government, by its order dated 02.11.1982, directed that the lands and rights so vested shall, w.e.f. from 05.12.1981, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company named Central Coalfields Ltd. (which was later formed into Northern Coal Fields Ltd. w.e.f. 28.11.1985, i.e. the Respondent). Thereafter, the Respondent submitted a proposal for its ‘Krishnashila project’ of 235.99 hectares of land for obtaining approval of the Central Government for use of the land for mining purpose under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Similarly, another proposal under the FCA, 1980 for usage of 258 hectares of forest land for mining purpose for ‘Bina Coal Project’ was submitted to the Central Government for obtaining its approval. Accordingly, in pursuance of Section 2 of the FCA, 1980, the Central Government, vide its order dated 23.05.1996, granted approval for diversion of 258 hectares of forest land under ‘Bina Project’ which was communicated by the State Government to the Respondent vide letter dated 28.06.1998. Similarly, the Central Government, with regard to the ‘Krishnashila Project’, vide its letter dated 06.07.2006, granted approval for diversion of 235.99 hectares of forest land in accordance with Section 2 of FCA, 1980, which was communicated to the Respondent by the State Government vide letter dated 27.07.2007. Similarly, the Central Government, with regard to the ‘Krishnashila Project’, vide its letter dated 06.07.2006, granted approval for diversion of 235.99 hectares of forest land in accordance with Section 2 of FCA, 1980, which was communicated to the Respondent by the State Government vide letter dated 27.07.2007. The Respondent, by virtue of Section 18A of the CBA, 1957, has been paying money equal to royalty as determined under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. However, the letter dated 23.03.2010 and subsequent letter dated 11.06.2010 were issued to the Respondent demanding the deposit of “lease rent” amounting to Rs. 1,24,23,015/- in accordance with Condition No. 7 of ‘Krishnashila Project’ and Rs. 1,91,25,593/- in accordance with Condition No. 12 of ‘Bina Project’. 51. It is evident from the said judgment that the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the implication of Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1957, has come to the conclusive finding that when the Central Government's right was free from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government Company also acquired an absolute right over the land. No question of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises in such a situation. This is by virtue of the fact that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, therefore, Section 10 (2) and Section 11 (2) become inapplicable in the given case. 52. The said aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration at paragraph 14 which is being quoted hereunder as:- “ 14. Further, the Government Order dated 02.11.1982 published by the Government of India, which was produced as Annexure P-1 before us, clearly provided that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 (1) of the CBA, 1957, the Central Government had directed the vesting of such land and rights in the Government Company, with effect from 05.12.1981. It is to be noted that the rights in the Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 11 and at that time, there did not exist any mining lease as provided under sub-section (2). It is to be noted that the rights in the Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 11 and at that time, there did not exist any mining lease as provided under sub-section (2). As explained above, the rights under Section 11 (1) are vested in the Government Company in the exact nature as they existed in the Central Government at the time. Therefore, when the Central Government's right was free from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government Company also acquired an absolute right over the land. No question of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises in such a situation. This is by virtue of the fact that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, therefore, Section 10 (2) and Section 11 (2) become inapplicable in the given case. Thus, the land vested in the Government Company free from all encumbrances, subject to the conditions imposed by the Central Government. Therefore, the State Government is not entitled to claim itself as a deemed lessor of the Government Company in the given situation and the demand for “lease rent” becomes completely unwarranted.” 53. It is further evident that the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has also been taken into consideration and on fact, the said judgment has been distinguished on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) on the premise that the factual aspect leading to the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) was with respect to the payment of premium and compensation as opposed to the demand of “lease rent” in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra), for ready reference, paragraph-16 of the said judgment is being referred herein:- “ 16. There is another judgment of this Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha that was placed before us during the course of arguments. There is another judgment of this Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha that was placed before us during the course of arguments. However, since in the said judgment, the dispute was with regards to the payment of premium and compensation, as opposed to the demand for “lease rent” in our case, the judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is not applicable to the case at hand. Moreover, in the said case, the right of the State Government to claim compensation/premium under section 18A of the CBA, 1957, was recognized by virtue of State Government being a “person interested” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Herein, there arises no question of an “interested person”. The said judgment did not delve into the question at hand currently, that is the distinction between the nature of right acquired under Section 11 (1) and (2) and there was no discussion whether there was a pre-existing mining lease at the time of acquisition or vesting of rights or not. Hence, the said judgment, is clearly distinguishable on facts.” 54. Further, the reference of the Constitution Bench Judgment rendered in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL , (2024) 10 SCC 1 also needs to be made herein. We, after going through the said judgment, have found the basic/fundamental difference between royalty and tax, has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 55. The Hon'ble Apex Court while holding the royalty to be not a tax, rather, different from tax under Section 9 of the M.M.D.R. Act. It has been held therein that it is paid to the land owner out of a contractual obligation between the land owner and the lessee. The land owner may be the State Government or a private person. 56. The aforesaid judgment also explains the fundamental differences between royalty and tax and it has been observed that Royalty charged by a proprietor is a consideration and arises from a lease deed while on the other hand, Tax is an imposition of a sovereign and it is levied in a taxable event determined by law and it is imposed by an authority of law. 57. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under: 70. 57. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under: 70. Section 9 (2) provides that the holder of a mining lease granted after the commencement of the MMDR Act is also liable to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub- lessee from the leased area at the rate specified in the Second Schedule. Section 9 (3) empowers the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of minerals enumerated in the Second Schedule. However, it also provides that the enhancement in the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral shall not be done more than once during any period of three years. 130. On first principles, royalty is a consideration paid by a mining lessee to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights and to compensate for the loss of value of minerals suffered by the owner of the minerals. The marginal note to Section 9 states that royalties are “in respect of mining leases.” The liability to pay royalty arises out of the contractual conditions of the mining lease. [See Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rules 27 and 45] A failure of the lessee to pay royalty is considered to be a breach of the terms of the contract, allowing the lessor to determine the lease and initiate proceedings for recovery against the lessee. 133. There are major conceptual differences between royalty and a tax: (i) the proprietor charges royalty as a consideration for parting with the right to win minerals, while a tax is an imposition of a sovereign; (ii) royalty is paid in consideration of doing a particular action, that is, extracting minerals from the soil, while tax is generally levied with respect to a taxable event determined by law: [Goodyear (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71 , para 27] (iii) royalty generally flows from the lease deed as compared to tax which is imposed by authority of law. 58. It is thus evident that power to collect tax as has been held in the aforesaid Judgment lies with the State Government if the State Government is having proprietary right or the subsisting lease on the basis of the proprietary right over the land in question. 59. 58. It is thus evident that power to collect tax as has been held in the aforesaid Judgment lies with the State Government if the State Government is having proprietary right or the subsisting lease on the basis of the proprietary right over the land in question. 59. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case of the State that the demand is not by way of premium and compensation, rather, it is on the basis of the lease rent which is also evident from the impugned order. 60. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the case of the writ petitioner is of acquisition of land having no subsisting lease right in favour of any party and, as such, the Government Company, the writ petitioner herein, will not be construed to be the deemed lessee of the State Government and in that view of the matter, the Government Company, due to vesting of the land, will not be liable to make payment of lease rent. 61. Again, adverting to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) and in absence of any subsisting lease, as referred in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 , the State will have no jurisdiction to demand royalty once the land has been vested in view of the notification issued under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957. The Central Government is having the propriety right over the land. 62. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, will not be applicable, since, the case of the State is not of demand of premium and compensation, rather, it is a case of lease rent. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable since the same is the case of lease rent wherein on fact the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has been distinguished. 63. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable since the same is the case of lease rent wherein on fact the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has been distinguished. 63. It further needs to refer herein that in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra), the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. and Others v. State of Bihar and Others , AIR 1984 Pat 280 has also been taken care of, as would be evident from paragraph-15 wherein, after giving consideration of the availability of the subsisting right in favour of the party and in such situation the land, if would have been vested upon the Central Government or the Government Company, as the case may be, then the question of lease rent would be there but it has been held by the Patna High Court that Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1957 is not attracted because there existed no mining lease prior to acquisition. The situation therein was also governed by Section 10 (1) and hence, it was rightly held that the State Government is divested of all its rights and the relationship of lessor and lessee does not continue between the State and the Central Government, for ready reference, paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred herein :- “ 15. The findings of the Patna High Court in Paragraph 7 of the judgment in the case of Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation (supra) is in lines with our analysis as even in that case, it was held that Section 10 (2) is not attracted because there existed no mining lease prior to acquisition. The situation therein was also governed by Section 10 (1) and hence, it was rightly held that the State Government is divested of all its rights and a relationship of lessor and lessee does not continue between the State and the Central Government (or for that matter the petitioner-company).” 64. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reasons, is answering the aforesaid issues. 65. Accordingly, the issues are answered. 66. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reasons, is answering the aforesaid issues. 65. Accordingly, the issues are answered. 66. In the result, in consequence of the issues having been answered hereinabove and on the admitted facts of the case that at the time of vesting of the land in favour of the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 10 (1) and subsequent thereto vesting to the Government companies in view of the provision of Section 11 (1) and as stipulated in sub-section 2 of Section 11 there was no subsisting lease construing Government companies to be deemed sub-lessee of the State Government as such the State Government will have no right to demand by way of lease rent. 67. However, it needs to refer herein that if the subsisting lease would be there, then the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (supra) will be applicable. 68. Accordingly, the impugned orders need interference and, as such, the same are quashed and set aside. 69. These writ petitions stand allowed. 70. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. I agree - Arun Kumar Rai, J.