Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Since, both the writ petitions arise from a common revisional order based on similar questions of law and fact, I would proceed to decide it together.

2. On the consent of the parties, the petitions are being decided without calling for the counter-affidavit under the Rules of the Court.

3. Pursuant to statutory policy framed by the Government of India dated 19 January 2005, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Corporation) undertook a bidding process to select a Developer who would in turn establish a thermal power station at Bara, District Allahabad The project site was chosen by the Corporation, 90% of the power that would be generated from the plant would be sourced to the five Distribution Companies of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Jaiprakash Associates Limited was selected in the bidding process on the strength of the lowest quoted tariff rate for a period of 25 years. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 23 February 2010, the entire land comprised in the project site was transferred to the petitioner Company by the Corporation. Upon transfer and possession of the project site, petitioner Company proceeded to commence work for establishment of the Thermal Power Plant for which it had undertaken the process of levelling and laying foundation by excavation of earth and blasting of rocks. The petitioner Company on 18 December 2010 was served an order by the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad raising demand for royalty for the use of minor mineral i.e. ordinary earth and ballast (gitti). Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was rejected on 28 December 2011, against which the petitioner preferred a revision being Revision NO. 07(R)/VSGM/2012 before the State Government under Rule 78 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 (1963 Rules), during pendency of the revision, an ad-interim order was operating. The State Government vide order dated 27 May 2015 rejected the revision on the premise that the State being the owner of the sub-soil and mineral thereunder was entitled to royalty, therefore, the petitioner Company is liable to pay royalty on the value of minor minerals determined by the District Magistrate; consequent thereto, the District Magistrate vide impugned demand order dated 12 June 2015, determined the value of the minerals being five times of the royalty determined in terms of Rule 21(2) of the 1963 Rules, thus, raising a demand of Rs. 4,45,47,830/- towards royalty and five times thereof towards value of the minerals at Rs. 22,27,39,150/-, aggregating to Rs. 26,72,86,980/-. The petitioner Company is assailing the orders mentioned herein above under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Nayar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the following on behalf of the petitioner:

(1) that vide Deed of Conveyance dated 23 February 2010 the the vendor (Corporation) in lieu of consideration received, has agreed to grant, convey, sell, transfer and assign to the Vendee (Petitioner Company), the entire property comprised in the deed together with all its estates, rights, titles and interests whether held in law or in equity as also all liberties, easements, privileges, rights, advantages and appurtenances attached to;

(2) that no part of the ‘Project Site’ is comprised in a mining lease or mining permit;

(3) that the petitioner Company has not taken any mining operation for the purpose of winning or extraction of a minor mineral;

(4) that the digging/mining operation undertaken by the petitioner Company were only for the purpose of erection and establishment of the Thermal Power Plant for which the site was transferred, therefore, cannot be subjected to a levy of royalty;

(5) that the ordinary earth excavated or gitti obtained from the site was not taken out of the Project Site, the minerals were utilized/deployed for the construction of the Thermal