JUDGMENT

K. VENKATASWAMI, J.

(1) IN all these appeals a common question of law arises for our consideration. A common argument was addressed by the counsel concerned and that is why they are disposed of by this common judgment

(2) THE U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(1 of 1951 (hereinafter called "the Act") came into force on and from 1/7/1952. On the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Act all the estates stood transferred to and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 6 of the Act speaks of consequences of such vesting in the State. It says that on the publication of notification under Section 4 all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate in such area including land and in all sub-soil in such estate including rights, if any, any mines and minerals whether being worked or not shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. In the light of the above provision, it appears the Collector, , Agra issued notices to the appellants staling that they should stop mining as they have lost all rights in the mines and minerals. The Collector, further took steps to auction the right to win the minor minerals. At this stage, the appellants challenged the actions of the Collector by moving the High court

(3) THE High court by an order dated 18/3/1955 held that the appellants were entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Ch. VI of the Act and consequently a direction was given to the State government and the Collector, Agra, for considering the applications of the appellants for grant of lease under S. 106-108 of the Act

(4) PURSUANT to the said judgment of the High court, the Collector, Agra, sent letters dated 8/1/1964 offering the terms and conditions of the proposed leases to the appellants. Along with those letters drafts of mining lease containing the details of terms and conditions were also enclosed. Inter alia, the lease was offered for a period of 15 years and the terms and conditions proposed were in the light of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called "the Rules") as well as the rules framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the central Act"). The appellants raised objections regarding certain terms and conditions contained in the proposed leases. Initially the aggrieved parties moved the High court by filing writ petitions and the High court while dismissing the same on 9/2/1965 directed the parties to come to a settlement regarding the terms and conditions on which the leases have to be given to the appellants and in case they could not settle the terms, the differences can be referred to the Mines tribunal to be appointed under Section 110 of the Act. As the parties could not come to a settlement, the Collector on 12/10/1966 filed an application under Section 107(2 of the Act for settlement of the terms of the leases. Before the Mines tribunal, the following were placed as areas of controversy:

"(A) PERIOD OF LEASE

Proposal of State Government

Objection of Opposite Party

The lease shall be for a period of

The lease should be perpetual and

fifteen years with effect from

permanent.

1-7-1952.

(B) PAYMENT OF ROYALTY OR DEAD

RENT

The rate of royalty or dead rent shall

The question of making payment

be charged in accordance with the

of royalty or dead rent for the past

maximum rate prescribed under

years does not arise at all. The rate

First Schedule (Rule 22) of the U.P.

of dead rent indicated in the draft

Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,

lease deed is excessive and there is

1963, with effect from 1-7-1952.

no guiding principle to determine

the same.

(C) COMMENCEMENT AND

EXECUTION OF THE LEASE

The lease shall be deemed to have

The terms and proposed lease deed

been executed with effect from 1-7-

should be prospective and not

1952.

retrospective."

(5) THE Mines tribunal, which was p