RAM DHANI SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR SONBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(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 24/02/1997, "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 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 (Pipari) district Sonbhadra, have put in appearance and have filed counter-affidavits to which the rejoinder affidavits have also been filed.