Summarize the following court judgment. Appeals Nos. 705 724 1971. (From the Judgment and Order dated 3 9 1970 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 992	 1042	 1088	 1096 1101	 1148 1150	 1194	 1244 1247	 1722/68 and 146/69 re spectively). D.P. Singh	 S.C. Agarwal and V. 1. Francis	 for the Appel lants. Sachin Chaudhary (in CA. 705/71) for Respondent No. 1. B. Sen	 and section 1. Sorabjee (in CA. 709/71)	 S.B. Sany al	 S.C. Banerjee	 D.N. Mukerjee and A.K. Nag for Respondent No. 1 (in CAs. 705 713 & 718 and Respondents in 714/71). D.N. Gupta	 for Respondents (In CAs. 715 717/71). S.N. Prasad (In CAs. 706/71)	 S.P. Nayar and Girish Chandra for Respondent No. 2 (in CA. 706 708	 713/71). A.K. Sen	 B. Sen	 D.N. Mukherjee and A. K. Nag for Respondent (in CA. 724/71). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH	 J. This batch of 20 Civil Appeals Nos. 705 to 724 of 1971 by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution which are directed against the common judgment dated September 3	 1970	 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raise important questions relating mainly to interpretation and scope of section 30A of the (Act 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act)	 shall be disposed of by this judgment. Circumstances leading to these appeals in so far as they would be helpful in appreciating the points involved are: Prior to October 25	 1949	 proprietors of big estates like Rajas of Ramgarh and Jharia granted	 in exercise of their untramelled discretion	 mining leases of huge tracts of land in the districts of Hazaribagh	 Dhanbad	 and Singhbhum to various persons for winning and extracting coal for a period of 999 years in lieu of payment of premiums and fixed annual rental. There was in these leases either no stipulation for payment of royalty or the royalty stipulated for was very low. Except in a few cases	 the lessees of these mining leases did not work the mines them selves and granted sub leases thereof more or less or similar terms. On September 8	 1948	 the Central Legislature passed the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act	 1948 (Act No. 53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act ') under Entry 36 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act	 1935. The Act	 as declared in its Preamble	 was enacted as it was considered expedient in public interest to provide inter alia for the regulation of mines and for the development of minerals Sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act ' prohibited the grant after the commencement of the Act of any mining lease otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under the Act. Sub section (2) of section 4 of the Act provided that any mining lease granted contrary to sub section(1) would be void and of no effect. Section 5 of the Act empower 160 ed the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of mining leases or for prohibiting the grant of such leases in respect of any mineral or in any area. 'Section 7 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any existing mining lease i.e. any mining lease granted prior to the commencement of the Act	 so as to bring such lease into conformity with the rules made under section 5. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the Act	 the Central Government made the Miner al Concession Rules	 1949. Both the 1948 Act and the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949	 came into force on October 25	 1949. Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules which related to the conditions of mining leases made it compulsory for every mining lease to include a condition enjoining the lessee to pay royalty on the minerals at the rate specified in the 	First Schedule to the Rules which in case of coal was 5% of the F.O.R. price. The 1948 Act was extended to Chhota Nagpur by a notifi cation dated January 16	 1950	 issued under section 92 of the Government of India Act	 1935. The provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949	 did not apply to leases or sub leases granted anterior to October 25	 ' 1949. The Constitution of India came into force on January 26	 1950. Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution which relate to the distribution of legislative powers and Entry 54 of List I (Union List) and Entry 23 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read thus "Article 246: (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3)	 Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3)	 Parlia ment	 and	 subject to clause (1)	 the Legislature of any State also	 have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Sche dule(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2)	 the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumer ated in List II in the Seventh Schedule. (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a "State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List". "Article 254: (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact	 or to any provi sion of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List	 then	 subject to the provisions of clause (2)	 the law made by Parliament	 whether passed before or after the 161 law made by the Legislature of such State or	 as the case may be	 the existing law	 shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall	 to the extent of the repugnancy	 be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumer ated in the Con current List contains any provi sion repugnant to the pro visions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter	 then	 the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall	 if it has been reserved for the consideration of the Presi dent and has received his as sent prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to	 amending	 varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State." "Entry 54 of List 1 (Union List). Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such re gulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." "Entry 23 of List II (State List). Regulation of mines and subject to the provisions of List I with mineral development respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. " The Constitution was followed by the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 1950 (Act XXX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bihar Land Reforms Act ') which though passed on September 11	 1950	 came into force on September 25	 1950. This legislation	 as evident from its preamble	 was enacted as it was considered expedient to provide for transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in land and of mortgagees and les sees of such interests including interest in mines and minerals. On the publication of notifications under sections 3 and 3A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 the estates or tenures of proprietors or ten ure holder as also the intermediary interests of all intermediaries passed to and became vested in the State. Section 4 of the Bihar Land Re forms Act declared the consequences flowing from the vesting of the estate or tenure in the State. Clause (a) of section 4(1) provided that on publi cation of the aforesaid notifications	 such estate or tenure	 including the interests of the proprie tor or tenure holder in any building etc.	 in trees etc. 	 as also his interest in all sub soil includ ing any rights in mines and minerals	 whether discovered	 or undiscovered	 or whether being worked or not	 inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals comprised in such estate or tenure other than the interests of raiyats or under raiyats shall	 with effect from the date of vesting	 vest absolutely in the State free. from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or tenure other than the interests expressly saved by 162 or under the provisions of the Act. Thus the interest of the proprietor or tenure holder includ ing his rights in mines and minerals	 inclusive of rights of a lessee of mines and minerals came to an end and vested absolutely in the State. Having once so vested	 certain rights were conferred by statute on the proprietors and tenure holders and the lessees. ' Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act provided that mines which were in operation. at the commencement of the Act and were being worked directly by the. intermediary shall be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the intermediary and he would be entitled to retain possession of those mines as a lessee thereof. The lease by the State Government to the interme diary	 according to sub section (2) of section 9 was to have such terms and conditions as might be agreed upon between the State Government and the intermediary or in the absence of such agreement	 as might be settled by the Mines Tribunal appointed under section 12 of the Act provided that all such terms and conditions had to be in	 accordance with the provisions of any Central Act for the time being in force regulating the grant of new mining leases. According to the proviso	. such terms and conditions were to be in accordance with the provi sions of the 1948 Act which was in force at the 	time the estate vested in the State of Bihar. The mines in the present cases	 it may be mentioned	 were not worked by the intermediary lessees. Sec tion	 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act which dealt with leases of mines and minerals which subsisted on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting of the estate or tenure provided: "10. Subsisting leases of mines and minerals ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act	 where	 immediately before the date of vesting of the estate or tenure there is a subsist ing lease of mines or minerals comprised the estate or tenure or any part thereof	 the whole or that part of the estate or tenure comprised in such lease shall	 with effect from the date of vest ing	 be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the holder of the said subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of that lease	 and such holder shah be entitled to retain posses sion of ' the leasehold property. (2) The terms and conditions of the said lease by the State Government shall mutatis mutan dis be the same as the terms and conditions of the subsisting lease referred to in sub section (1)	 but with 'the additional condition that	 if in the opinion of the State Government the holder of the lease had not	 before the date of the commencement of this Act	 done any prospecting or development work	 the State Government shall be entitled at any time before 'the expiry of one year from the said date to determine the lease by giving three months ' notice in writing: Provided that nothing in this sub section shall be deemed to prevent any modifications being made in the terms and conditions of the said lease in accordance with the provision of any Central Act for the time being in force regulating the modifi cation of existing mining leases. 163 (3) The holder of any such lease of mines and minerals as is referred to in sub section ( 1 ) shall not be entitled to claim any damages from the outgoing proprietor or tenure holder on the ground that the terms of the lease executed by such proprietor or tenure holder in respect of the said mines and minerals have become incapable of fulfilment by the operation of this Act. " The consequence of the operation of sections 4(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act as held by this Court in Bihar Mines Ltd. vs Union of India(1) and reiterated in Chhatu Ram Horil Ram Private Ltd. vs State of Bihar & Anr.(2) was not that the old original contractual leases of mines and minerals comprised in the estate and subsisting on the date of vesting continued with the Government substi tuted as lessor in place of original lessor but was that the original contractual leases came to an end on the date of vesting as a result of section 4(1)(a) of the Act and for the remainder of the terms of those leases	 fresh statutory leases in favour of the lessees came into being under sec tion 10(1) of the Act. All the estates of Jharia Kajya within which the leases in question fell became vested in the State of Bihar on November 3	 1951	 Thenceforth i.e. from November 3	 1951	 the subsisting leases came to be treated as new statutory leases granted 	by the State Government in terms of section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in view of the decision of this Court in Bihar Mines Ltd. vs Union of India (supra). In 1956 the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules	 1956 providing for the modification and alteration of the terms and conditions of the mining leases granted prior to the commencement of the 1948 Act so as to bring them in conformity with the terms and conditions of the mining leases granted after the commencement of the 1948 Act in accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949	 were promulgated under section 7 of the 1948 Act on Septem ber 4. 1956. These Rules by virtue of the definition of the "existing mining lease" contained in rule 2(c) of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules	 1956 were made expressly inapplicable to mining leases in respect of coal granted before October 25	 1959 the date of commencement of 1948 Act	 with the result that the mining leases or sub leases of the respondents were not affected by the provi sions of the 1948 Act or the rules made thereunder. The 1948 Act was replaced by the (Act No. 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1957 Act ') which though after being passed by the Parliament under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution received the assent of the President on December 28	 1957	 came into force on June 1	 1958. Section 9 of the 1957 Act provided : "9. Royalties in respect of mining leases:(1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act shall	 notwithstanding anything (1) ; (2) ; :A.I.R. 1969 S.C .177. 164 contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at such commencement	 pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area after such commencement	 at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. (2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral "removed by him from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. (3) The Central Government may by notifica tion in the official gazette	 amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be pay able in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification: Provided that the Central Government shall not (a) fix the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral so as to exceed twenty per cent of the sale price of the mineral at the pit 's head	 or (b) enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of four years. It will be noticed that sub section (1) of the above quoted section made it obligatory for the holder of a mining lease granted before the com mencement of the 1957 Act notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of his lease or in any other law in force at the commencement of the 1957 Act to pay in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area after December 28	 1957	 royalty at the rate specified in the Second Sched ule of the 1957 Act which for coal was fixed at 5% of F.O.R. price subject to a minimum of fifty N.P. per ton. Section 16 of the 1957 Act provided that mining leases granted before October 25	 1949 would	 as soon as might be	 after the commencement of the 1957 Act	 be brought into conformity with the provisions of the 1957 Act and the rules made under sections 13 and 18 thereof. Section 29 of the 1957 Act provided for the effective continuance of the rules made or purport ed to have been made under the 1948 Act in so far as they related to matters provided for in the former Act and were not inconsistent therewith. The effect of section 9 of the 1957 Act as held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs Dadabhoy 's New Chirimiri Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1) was that the rate of royalty was enhanced in case of those lessees who	 under the leases obtained by them before the commencement of the Act	 were paying a rate lesser than 5% while the royalty payable by lessees similarly placed was reduced if they were paying royalty at a higher rate. As the enhancement envisaged by section 9 of the 1957 Act was apprehended to lead to an increase in the cost of production of coal which is a vital mineral for (1) [972] 2 S.C.R. 609. 165 the industrial development and occupies a basic position in the economy of the country	 various representations were made to the Government of India to reduce the royalty. Impelled by these representations	 the Central Government moved a Bill in March	 1958	 being Bill No. 33 of 1958	 and got	 by means of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act	 1958	 section 30A inserted in the 1957 Act reading as follows : "30A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions of sub section (1) of section 9 and of subsection (1 ) of section 16 shah not apply to or in relation to mining leases grant ed before the 25th day of October	 1949 in respect of coal but the Central Government	 if it is satis fied that it is expedient so to do	 may by notifi cation in the official gazette direct shall all or any of the said provisions (including any rules made under sections 13 and 18) shall apply to or in relation to such leases subject to such exceptions and modifications	 if any	 as may be specified in that or in any subsequent notification." This section	 it would be seen	 consisted of two parts. Under the first part	 the provisions of sections 9(1) and 16(1) were expressly made inapplicable to or in relation to pre October 25	 1949 mining leases for coal. The second part empowered the Central Government on being satisfied that it was expedient so to do to direct by notification that all or any of those provisions (including the rules made under sections 13 and 18) would apply to or in relation to such leases subject to such exceptions and modifications	 if any	 as might be specified in that or any subsequent notification. The "exceptions and modifications" which could be so specified in the notification were obviously in regard to the application	 when such application was decided upon	 of sections 9 ( 1 ) and 16 ( 1 ) and the relevant rules. The aforesaid section 30 A was given a retrospective effect by virtue of section 2 of the Amendment Act 15 of 1958. Vide notification No. GSR 432 dated May 29	 1958	 the 1957 Act was brought into force with effect from June 1	 1958. By notification No. S.O. 3094 dated December 29	 1961	 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the second part of section 30A of the 1957 Act	 directed the provisions of sub section (1) or section 9 to apply with immediate effect to or in relation tO mining leases in respect of coal granted before October 25	 1949 subject to the modification that lessees were required to pay royalty at the rates specified in the agreements between them and the lessor or at the rate of 21/2% on F.O.R. price of coal	 whichever was higher	 in place of the rate of royalty specified in respect of coal under the Second Sched ule. After the notification	 the ' State Government started demanding royalty at 21/2% and initiated proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act to realize royalty at 21/2% for the period between 29.12.1961 and 31.12.1965. On October 26	 1964	 the Bihar Land Reforms Act was amended by insertion of section 10 A originally by the Bihar Amendment Ordi 166 nance No. 3 of 1964 which was subsequently replaced by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act	 1954 (Bihar Act 4 of 1965). Under this newly added section	 the lessees ' interest in mines and minerals which were subject to sub leases also came to vest in the State of Bihar. Thus the State also acquired the right to sub lease. On October 27	 1964	 the interests of Chakroborty and Adhikaris from whom sub leases appear to have been taken in the beginning of the current century vested in the State of Bihar. On January 1	 1966	 a notification being S.O.No. 81 of 1966	 was issued by the Central Government under section 30A of the 1957 Act superseding the notification No. S.O. 3094 dated December 29 1961 and applying the provisions of section 9(1) of the 1957 Act to leases granted prior to the commencement of the said Act. On October 3	 1966	 this Court pronounced judgment in Bihar Mines Ltd. vs Union of India (supra) holding therein that the whole or that part of the estate or tenure com prised in an) ' lease of mines and minerals would	 with effect from the date of vesting	 be deemed to have been leased out by the State Government to the holder of the subsisting lease (i.e. the first lessee) for the remainder of the period of the lease and that the statutory lease thus held by the head lessee from the State Government under section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 would be a new lease granted after October 25. 1949	 and that the sub leases would also be deemed to be new leases granted by the new lessee from the State Government	 as the rights of the original lessee under the original lease had ceased on the vesting of the estate	 and he was to be deemed to have got a new lease from the State. On December 22	 1967	 the Patna High Court held in Narendra Nath Mandal vs State of Bihar & Ors. (1) that a lessee of a coal mine was liable to pay royalty for the period beginning from the date of vesting of an estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act to May 31	 1958 at 5% of F.O.R. price of coal subject to a minimum of eight paise per ton by virtue of section 29 of the 1957 Ace read with Rule 41 and Schedule I of Mineral Concession Rules	 1949	 and at the same rate from the date on which the 1957 Act came into force by virtue of section 9(1) of the said Act read with Second Schedule thereto because neither section 30A nor the notification issued thereunder was applicable to the said lease in view of the effect of the vesting of estate in the State of Bihar and the coming into existence of a new lease by force of section 10 of the Act which could not be said to be a lease granted before October 25	 1949 which alone was the subject matter of section 30A of the 1957 Act. In June 1968	 demands were made by the District Mining Officer	 appellant No. 2 herein	 for payment of royalty at the rate specified in the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 in respect of the period commencing from November 3	 1951 the date of vesting of the estates of the head lessors under the Bihar Land Reforms Act till May 31	 1958 and in respect of the period from June 1	 1958 the date of coming into force of the 1957 Act to December 12	 1965	 at the rate C. J.C. 653of 1965 (Patna H.C.) 167 specified in the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act	 after setting off 211/2% already realised	 in view of the decision in Narendra Nath Mandal 's case (supra). Aggrieved by these demands	 the respondents filed petitions in the High Court of Patna for issue of writs of certiorari and 	mandamus quashing the demand notices and restraining the State from demanding royalty as indicated above. The case as set up by the respondents in the writ peti tions was that as Rule 41 of the Mineral Concessions Rules	 1949	 requiring royalty to be paid at the rate specified in Schedule 1 to the rules	 applied only to a ' lease granted under the said Rules after the commencement of the 1948 Act and had no application to the leases and subleases of the respondents	 royalty could not be claimed on the basis of 5 % of F.O.R. price of coal in respect of the period between the date of vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and May 31	 1958the date immediately preceding the date on which the 1957 Act was brought into force; that as regards the period between June 1	 1958 and December 28	 1961 royalty at con tractual rates alone was payable because the provisions of section 9(1) of the 1957 Act had no application to statuto ry leases deemed to. have come into existence under section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and alternatively be cause by virtue of the provisions of section 30A of the 1957 Act the provisions of section 9(1) of the said Act were not applicable to or in relation to the mining leases in respect of coal granted before October 25	 1949 until the Central Government	 by notification	 decided otherwise; that as regards the claim in respect of the period from December 29	 1961 to December 31	 1965 'royalty at 21/2% of F.O.R. price of coal had already been paid by the respondents as per notification of the Central Government issued in exer cise of the power under section 30A of the 1957 Act and having itself invited and accepted this payment in full discharge of the respondents ' liability for royalty payable for the said period	 the State was not entitled to unilater ally revoke the aforesaid discharge or satisfaction and claim further royalty at 21/2% of F.O.R. price of coal over and above what has already been paid. In reply the appellants herein submitted inter alia that the demands were lawful	 that the combined effect of sec tions 9 and 29 of the 1957 Act read with Second Schedule thereto and the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 was that the respondents who were lessees or sub lessees were liable to pay royalty at the rate of 5% of F.O.R. price of coal from the date of vesting of the respective estates of the pro prietors who had granted head leases in the State of Bihar for the entire period in question; that section 9(1) of the 1957 Act was very comprehensive and applied to all leases whether contractual or statutory which came into existence before the 1957 Act was brought into operation; that section 30A of the 1957 Act applied only to leases in respect of coal which had been granted before October 25	 1949 and not to the new statutory mining leases of the respondents deemed to have been granted by the State Government before the coming into operation of the 1957 Act under the provisions of section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act; and that the provisions of section 9(1) of the could not be taken to have been suspended by section 30A of the Act so far as the leases in question were concerned. All the writ petitions were heard by a Sepcial Bench of five Judges of the High Court. The said Bench by its judgment and order dated September 3	 1970 allowed all the writ petitions filed by the respondents and quashed the impugned notices holding that Narendra Nath Mandal 's case (supra) had been wrongly decided; that rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 made under section 5 of the 1948 Act which was claimed by the appellants to have been continued in force by virtue of section 29 of the 1957 Act and to justify the	 demand for royalty for the period prior to June 1	 1958 was applicable only to contractual grants envisaged by the said Rules and could have no application to statutory leases arising by virtue of section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act; that there was no warrant for pushing back section 9 of the 1957 Act by virtue of section 29 thereof to any date anterior to that on which the said Act came into force; that as section 30A of the 1957 Act on its true interpretation	 imposed a temporary bar on the operation of the provisions of section 9(1) not only in respect of mining leases grant ed before October 25	 1949 in respect of coal but also in relation to those leases which expression covered the statu tory leases of the respondents which must be deemed to have come into existence with effect from the date of vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 the demand for royalty for the period commencing from June 1	 1958 to December 31	 1965 was also unjustified and illegal. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Special Bench of the High Court	 the appellants filed a petition in the High Court under Articles 132 and 133(1)(a) of the Constitu tion for grant of certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court. The High Court by itsorder dated January 22	 1971 granted the certificate of fitness under Article 133(1 )(a) of the Constitution enabling the appellants to prefer the aforesaid appeals to this Court. Counsel for the parties have reiterated before us the contentions urged on behalf of their clients before the High Court. Two important questions arise for determination by us in these appeals: (1) whether the claim for royalty in regard to the period prior to June 1	 1958 can be sustained; (2) whether the claim for ' royalty in regard to the period from June 1	 1958 to December 31 1965 is justified. So far as the demand for royalty at 5% Of F.O.R. price of coal for the period prior to June 1	 1958 the date on which the 1957 Act came into force is concerned we are of opinion that it is not justified in view of the fact that Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 applied only to contractual leases envisaged by Chapter IV of the said Rules (which were made inter alia for regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of any mineral) and not to the statutory leases which came into existence as a result of the deeming provision embodied in section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. This view is in accord with the decision of this Court in Chhatu Ram 's case (supra) where dealing with Rule 40 of the Mineral Concession Rules 169 1949 which relates to the period of lease	 Shah	 J. who delivered the judgment of the Court observed that the rule manifestly applied to grants made by the Government and had No. application to statutory leases arising by reason of section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. We	 therefore	 find ourselves in complete agreement with the High Court that the claim for royalty for the period prior to June 1	 1958	 is wholly unfounded and cannot be supported. So far as the demand for royalty for the period beginning with June 1	 1958 and ending with December 31	 1965 is con cerned	 we are of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the view expressed in this behalf by the High Court in its judgment under appeal. 'This becomes abundantly clear from a close scrutiny of section 30A (supra) of the 1957 Act	 the provisions whereof may usefully be recalled at this stage. Before examining	 however	. section 30A	 it would be profitable to advert to section 9 (supra) of the Act. This section	 it would be seen consists of three parts. Sub section (1) casts a liability on the holder of a mining lease granted before June 1	 1958 the date of the commencement of the Act to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area after that date at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule	 notwithstanding anything contained in the instru ment of lease or in any law in force on the aforesaid date of the commencement of the Act. Sub section (2) makes also the holder of a mining lease granted on or after June 1	 1958 liable to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule. Sub section (3) empowers the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule and enhance or reduce the rate of royalty in re spect of any mineral by issue of a notification subject to the restriction contained in the proviso to this sub sec tion. Section 30A which	 as is evident from its opening words	 has an overriding effect on the other provisions of the Act affords a temporary protection from applicability of section 9(1) and section 16(1) of the Act not only to the leases granted before October 25	 1949	 but also to the statutory leases which came into existence as a result of the operation of section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and replaced the former category of leases subsisting immediately before the date of vesting in the State of the estates or tenures on the publication of the notifications under sections 3 and 3A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. This conclusion irresistibly flows from the words "or in relation to" occurring in section 30A of the 1957 Act after the words "shall not apply to" and before the words "mining leases granted before the 25th day of October 1949" The aforesaid words which are of great significance of enlarge the scope of section 30A and bring within the umbrella of its protection the mining leases granted before October 25	 1949 as also the statutory leases which sprang up in their place by virtue of the legal fiction contained in Section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on the re:sting in the State of the estates or tenures. As expressly ordained by sub sections (1) & (2) of section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 not ' only the ' holder of a statutory lease had to be the same as the holder of a subsisting 13 1003 SCI/76 170 lease for the remainder of the term of that lease but the terms and conditions of the statutory lease had also muta tis mutandis to be the same as the terms and conditions of the subsisting lease i.e. the original lease except to the extent mentioned in sub section (2). Thus the statutory lease being inextricably linked up with the aforesaid sub sisting lease which it replaced as a result of the aforesaid provisions of the Act came within the purview of section 30A of the 1957 Act. The interpretation sought to be placed by the appellants on the phraseology of section 30A of the 1957 Act cannot be accepted as;. it would unduly re strict and limit the scope of that section and defeat the object which it was intended to effectuate viz. to mitigate the rigour of liability for payment of royalty under section 9 of the 1957 Act at the rate specified in the Second Sched ule in respect of the coal removed from ' the leased area after the commencement of the Act. If as contended by the appellants	 the protection envisaged by section 30A is restricted to leases granted before October 25	 1949	 sec tion 30A would be ' rendered nugatory because on the coming into being of the statutory leases as a result of section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 there would hardly be left any mining lease to which section 30A of the 1957 Act would be applicable. Thus there can be no room for doubt that the Legislature intended that section 30A of the 1957 Act should cover the aforesaid statutory leases as well. It will be apposite in this connection to refer to the following statement of objects and reasons given in the Bill which sought to introduce section 30A in the 1957 Act with retrospective effect which can be usefully resorted to for ascertaining the true scope of section 30A and the extent of the protection afforded by it : " . It ' is considered that these changes will have numerous undesirable consequences. The areas covered by these mining leases are principally in West Bengal and Bihar and they account for as much as 80 per cent of the total coal production in the country. The royal ties paid on this coal vary over a wide range but are gener ally much below the rate per ton prescribed in the Second Schedule. A sudden and uniform increase of these royalties is likely to have an unsettling effect in the industry and may retard the programme of coal production under the Second Five Year Plan . . " Thus the above discussion makes it crystal clear that the statutory mining leases in respect of coal which sprang up under section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act also acquired a temporary immunity from the applicability of sections 9(1) and 16(1) of the Act until the Central Govern ment came out with a notification making the said provisions applicable with or without modification to these leases. Accordingly	 we have no hesitation in holding in agreement with the High Court that the further demand for royalty for the second period indicated above cannot also be sustained. For the foregoing reasons	 we find no force in these appeals which are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case	 the parties are left to pay and bear their own costs of these appeals	 P.B.R. Appeals dis missed.

Prior to October 25	 1949	 the proprietors; of big estates granted mine leases either without payment of royalty or at very low royalty. In most c the lessees granted sub leases on similar terms. The Mines and Mine (Regulation and Development) Act	 1948	 prohibited grant of any mine lease except in accordance with rules made under the Act. 41 of Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 which came into force on October 25	 1 made it compulsory for every mining lease to include a condition regard payment of royalty on the minerals. The rule	 however	 did not apply leases or sub leases granted prior to October 25	 1949. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 1950 passed by the State legislate the interest of a proprietor or tenure holder as. well as of the lessee including rights in mines and minerals	 came to an end and vested absolutely in State. Section 10 provided that the whole or part of the estate or term comprised in a subsisting lease shall be deemed to have been leased by State Government to the holder for the remainder of the term of lease. The w replaced the 1948Act came into force on June 1	 1958. Section 9(1) of Act made it obligatory for the holder of a mining lease granted before commencement of the 1957 Act to pay in respect of any mineral removed him from the leased area after December 28	 19 '57	 royalty at a specified Section 16 provided that a mining lease granted before October 25	 194_9	 w be brought into conformity with the provisions of the 1957 Act and the r Section 29 provided for the effective continuance of the rules made under 1948 Act in so. far as they related to. matters provided for in the 1957 and were not inconsistent therewith. Section 30A which was inserted in the 1957 Act provides that the proviso of section 9(1) and of section 16(1) "shall not apply to or in relation to mining lease granted before October 25	 1949" and empowered the Central Government direct by notifi cation that all or any of the provisions of sections 9(1) and 1. shall apply to or in relation to such leases subject to such exceptions and notifications if any	 as might be specified in that or in any subsequent notification Section 30A was given retrospective effect. In 1967	 the High Court	 in Narendra Nath Mandal vs State of Bihar & held (i) that a lessee of a mine was liable to pay royalty for the period being from November 3	 19	51 (date of vesting of an estate under the Bihar Reforms Act) to. May 31	 1958 by virtue of section 29 of 1957 Act read with and Schedule I of 1949 Rules and (ii) from June 1	 1958 (the date of col into force of the 1957 Act) to December 31	 1965 b.y virtue of section 9(1) of Act read with the second Schedule there to because neither section 30A nor notification was ap plicable to the	 lease in view of the effect of the vesting estate in the State and the coming into. existence of a new lease by fore section 10 of the Act. After this decision the State issued demand notices to respondents for payment of royalty in accordance with the decision of High Court. Allowing the respondents ' Writ petitions	 the High Court quashed the der notices. The High Court held that Mandal 's case had been wrongly decide On the question whether the claim for royalty (1) prior to June 1	 and (2) from June 1	 1958 to December 31	 1965 could be sustained. 158 Dismissing the appeals of the State	 HELD: (1) The High Court was right in holding that the claim for yalty prior to June 1	 1958 was wholly unfounded and cannot be supported. Bihar Mines Ltd. vs Union of India this Court held that the consequence of the operation of sections 4(1)(a) and 10.(1) of the Bihar Act was that the original ntractual leases came to an end on the date of vesting and for the remainder the terms of those leases fresh statutory leases in favour of the lessees me into being under section 10(1) of the Act as a result of which from November 3	 1951	 the subsisting leases came to be treated as new statutory leases wanted by the State Government in terms of section 1D(1) of the Bihar Act	 1950. the 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules	 1949 applied only to contractual cases envisaged by Chapter IV of the Rules and not to the statutory leases which came into existence as a result of the deeming provision in section 10 of e Bihar Land Reforms. [169 B; 163 B D] Bihar Mines Ltd. vs Union of India ; ; A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 7 followed. Chhatu Ram Horil Ram Private Ltd. vs State of Bihar & Anr. ; ; applied. (2) The High Court was also right in its view that the demand for payment of royalty for the period from June 1	 1958 to December 31	 1965 cannot sustained. [168 G] (a) Section 30A which has an over riding effect on the other provisions of Act	 affords a temporary protection from applicability of sections 9(1) and (1) of the Act not only to the leases granted before October 25	 1949 but also the statutory leases which came into existence as a result of the operation of 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and replaced the former category of ses subsisting immediately before the date of vesting in the State of the ates or tenures on the publication of the notifications under section 3 and 3A the Bihar Land Reforms Act. This conclusion irresistibly flows from the tds "or in relation to" occurring in section 30A after the words "shall not apply and before the words "mining leases granted before the 251h day of October 9". These words	 enlarge the scope of section 30Pt and bring within the umbrella its protection mining leases	 granted before October 25	 1949 as also the utory leases which sprang up in their place by virtue of the legal fiction tained in section 10(1 ) of the Bihar. Reforms Act on the . vesting in the se of the estates or tenures. As expressly ordained by section 10(1) and (2) the Bihar Land Re forms Act not only the 'holder 017 a statutory lease had be the same as the holder of a subsisting lease for the remain der of the of that lease but the terms and conditions of the statutory lease had also 'aris mutandis to be the same as the terms and conditions of the subsisting e i.e. the original lease except to the extent in sub section Thus the statu lease being inextricably linked up with the subsist ing_lease which it replacas a result of the aforesaid provi sions of the Act	 came within the purview s.30.A of the 1957 Act. The interpretation sought to be placed by the ellants on the phraseology of section 30A cannot be accepted as it would unduly lict and limit the scope of that section and defeat the object which it was nded to effectuate	 namely	 to mitigate the rigour of liability for payment of dty under section 9 of the 1957 Act after the commencement of the Act. If	 ontended by the appellants	 the protection envisaged by section 30A is restricted the leases granted before October 25	 1949	 section 30A would be rendered atory because on the. coming into being of the statutory leases as a result 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act	 there would hardly be left any ing lease to which	 section 30A would be applicable. There can be no room doubt that the Legislature. intended that section 30A of the 1957 Act should 'r the statutory leases as well. A B] b) Statutory mining leases in respect of coal which sprang up under )(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act also acquired a temporary immunity the applicability of sections 9(1) and 16(1) of the Act until the Central Government came out with a notification making the said provisions applicable with without modification to these leases. [170 G] 159