LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. The common question which arises in these three writ cases is as to whether the petitioner-company is liable to pay to the State of Bihar Dead Rent by reason of the provisions of Sec.18A of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act).

2. With the object to establish greater public control over the Coal Mining Industry and its development, the Acquisition Act was passed in 1957. The Central Government has been authorised to make a declaration under Section 9 of the Act that any land or any rights in or over such land should be acquired. On the publication of such a declaration in the official gazette, the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, by virtue of Sec.10, vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The sub-section (2) of Sec.10 provides that where any person has got rights under any mining lease, the Central Government shall be deemed to have become the lessee under the State Government. The provisions of Sec.11 empower the Central Government to direct that the land or the rights in or over the land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government under Sec.10, shall vest in a Government company. The petitioner is such a company. Sections 13 to 17 deal with the liability of payment and method of determination of compensation and other connected provisions. In 1971, Sec.18A, which is quoted below, was inserted in the Act by an amendment:

"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 Sec.10 or in a Government Company under Sec.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."

According to the case of the respondents, the petitioner company is liable to pay Dead Rent. The respondent-Certificate Officer issued a notice (which is Annexure- 1 to the writ application) under S.7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act requiring the petitioner to pay specified sums of money. Three certificate proceedings were thus started. The petitioner denied the liability as also challenged the claims as public demands. The objections were overruled by the orders which have been annexed to the petitions as Annexure- 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ applications for quashing the certificate proceedings and Annexures- 1 and 2.

3. The areas in question were not subject to any earlier mining lease and vested in the petitioner company on the publication of the declaration under Section 9 of the Acquisition Act by virtue of Sections 10 and 11. The disputed demands have been made on the basis that the Central Government is in the position of a lessee under the State of Bihar and thus subject to the liabilities under Sections 9 and 9A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Act).

4. The Certificate Officer held that the petitioner is liable for payment of royalty under Sec.18A of the Acquisition Act and the Dead Rent is nothing but the minimum payable royalty. He rejected the argument of the petitioner that the word may in Sec.18A does not create any obligation and the provision is merely enabling so that the Central Government or a Government company may make payment if it so desires.

5. Mr. Balabhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that as a consequence of a notification under Section 9 of the Acquisition Act, the entire interest in the land and the rights in or over the same vested absolutely in the petitioner free from all encumbr