( 1 ) THIS bunch of 73 cases, raises important question of law which may be having far reaching consequences, therefore, more than sufficient time was provided to the learned counsel for the parties to ventilate their grievances and respective arguments which all of them have done with great ability.

( 2 ) ON February 24, 1997. "shaktinagar Special Area Development Authority (Cess on Mineral rights) Rules, 1997" (hereinafter referred to as the Cess Rules) having been promulgated through publication in the U. P. Gazette, all the petitioners seem to have been asked to pay Cess in accordance with the Cess Rules and it appears that by the notice of demand the amount so calculated was demanded and the petitioners having not paid the Cess, the recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue have commenced and each one of the petitioners has rushed to this court challenging those recovery proceedings and the citations issued by the recovering authorities for attempting to collect the said Cess from each of the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN all the writ petitions, the petitioners are firm, company or individuals, as the case may be, when these petitions were filed, notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petitions be not allowed while calling for counter-affidavits from them and recovery proceedings against each of the petitioners had been stayed which was extended from time to time. Four opposite parties. Collector Sonbhadra, Tahsildar. Tahsil Robertsganj, district sonbhadra, State of U. P. through Principal Secretary Avas Anubhag-1. Government of Uttar pradesh, and Secretary, Shakti Nagar, Special Area Development Authority, Turra (Pipary)district Sonbhadra, have put in appearance and have filed counter-affidavits to which the rejoinder-affidavits have also been filed.

( 4 ) SARVASHRI Satya Prakash Singh (S. P. Singh) Amrash Singh and M. L. Srivastava, learned counsel have been heard on behalf of the petitioners at great length. Shri Ashok Mehta, Chief standing Counsel assisted by Shri Vishnu Pratap Singh and Sri R. K. Saxena, standing counsel have espoused the cause of the State of U. P. and its officials and Shri R. B. Pradhan advocate has represented the Secretary Shakti Nagar. Special Area Development Authority. Turra (Pipari), district Sonbhadra.

( 5 ) ENTIRE record of all the cases have been examined and as prayed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, all the petitions are being heard finally at the admission stage and this judgment shall decide all the writ petitions.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions, some factual happenings have to be taken note of. The State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State) has passed the Uttar pradesh Special Area Development Authorities Act. 1986 (U. P. Act No. 9 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as the Act, which received the assent of the President of India on March 19. 1986 and has been published in the U. P. Gazette on that very day. The preamble says the Special Area development Authorities Act has been enacted to provide for the establishment of Special Area development Authorities for the planned development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh and for matters ancillary thereto. The words "authority", "amenity", building, "development", "regulation", "rule", "special development area" have been defined under Section 2 of the aforesaid Act. Section 3 of the Act permits the State Government when it is of the opinion that any area of special importance in the State needs to be developed in a planned manner, it may by notification, declare such area to be a special development area. Section 4 defines the development Authority. Section 5 enumerates the Staff of the Authority. Section 6 delineates functions of the Special Area Development Authority and Section 7 is about the Powers of the authority. Sections 6 and 7 are quoted below for ready reference :

"6. Functions of the Authority.--The functions of the Specia