1. Dispute over mica mining permission based on leases granted by shrotriem inamdars prior to estate takeover under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd April, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
State of A.P., Appellant
Versus
Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and others, Respondents and Vice Versa.
Civil Appeals Nos. 252 and 253 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh (Mrs. D. Parsanna Kumari and M/s. T. V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (In C. A. No. 252 of 58) and respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 253 of 58); Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellants (In C. A. No. 253 of 58) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (In C. A. No. 252 of 58~; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri. Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 2 (In C. A. No. 253 of 58).
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.NARASARAJU, D.PARSANNA KUMARI, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, P.RAM REDDY, T.V.R.TATACHARI
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.NARASARAJU, D.PARSANNA KUMARI, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, P.RAM REDDY, T.V.R.TATACHARI
Inam grants do not automatically include sub-soil rights; such rights must be specifically conferred or inferable from the grant's language. The inclusion of unculturable land (Poramboke) indicates full surface proprietary rights but does not establish a presumption of sub-soil rights.
Headnote:(A) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 20(1) - Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 - Inam grants - Sub-soil rights - Mere holding of an inam grant is not sufficient to establish that the grant included sub-soil rights in addition to surface rights - Grant of sub-soil rights depends on the language used in the instrument and the circumstances of each case - If no words in the grant allow for the inference of sub-soil rights, the grant conveys only surface rights (Para 8).
(B) Inam grants - Inclusion of Poramboke (unculturable land) - Inclusion of Poramboke indicates that full proprietary surface rights were granted rather than mere revenue rights, but it does not necessarily imply that sub-soil rights were also included in the grant (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Respondents obtained leases for mica mining from co-owners of a village. Subsequently, the village was notified under an estates abolition act, and the interest of the owners was taken over by the State. The respondents sought permission to carry on mining operations, which the State refused, contending that the original grantees had no rights to the minerals and therefore could not grant such leases.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was nothing in the available records to show that the inam grant included sub-soil rights. Consequently, the original grantees had no authority to grant leases for minerals, rendering the leases granted to the respondents legally ineffective for the purpose of claiming a mining lease from the State.
Issues: Whether holders of a shrotriem inam grant possess rights to minerals (sub-soil rights) and whether the inclusion of unculturable land (Poramboke) in such a grant creates a presumption that sub-soil rights were also granted.
Ratio Decidendi: Sub-soil rights are not automatically transferred with an inam grant; they must be specifically conferred or inferable from the language of the grant. The inclusion of Poramboke only establishes full proprietary surface rights and does not extend to sub-soil rights. Therefore, without a specific grant of minerals, the grantees cannot validly lease them to third parties.
Result: Appeal No. 252 allowed; Appeal No. 253 dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether shrotriem inam grants include sub-soil rights allowing inamdars to grant mining leases, or if such rights remain with the State. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Inclusion of unculturable land indicates full surface proprietary rights but does not establish a presumption of sub-soil rights without express language in the grant. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Sub-soil rights in inam grants depend on the instrument's language; mere holding of an inam grant does not automatically convey mineral rights to the grantee. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 )
5. State appeal allowed and respondents' appeal dismissed; writ petition for mining permission dismissed. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Do inam grants automatically include sub-soil rights?
No. The grant of a village in inam may be a mere assignment of revenue. Whether sub-soil rights pass depends on the language of the instrument and the circumstances of each case; it cannot be equated to a complete transfer of all grantor interests. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does the inclusion of Poramboke (unculturable land) in an inam grant imply the transfer of sub-soil rights?
No. The inclusion of Poramboke indicates that full surface proprietary rights were granted rather than a mere grant of revenue (melvaram), but it does not establish a presumption that sub-soil rights were also included in the grant. (Para 11 )
8. What is the legal effect of a mining lease granted by an inamdar who lacks sub-soil rights?
Such leases are of no legal effect in conveying rights to minerals under the soil. Consequently, the lessee cannot use such leases to claim a mining lease from the Government as a matter of right. (Para 12 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.: These are two connected appeals arising out of the same judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court The main appeal No. 252 is by the State of Andhra Pradesh while the other appeal No. 253 is by Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and others. We shall dispose of them by this common judgment and will hereinafter refer to the State of Andhra Pradesh as the appellant and Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and others as the respondents. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The respondents had files a writ petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining operations in survey No. 49/1 in the village of Ananthamadugu in Rapur Taluk of Nellore district subject to the respondents executing an agreement in the manner provided under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and conforming to the conditions mentioned therein. The case of the respondents was that they had obtained leases for mica mining purposes from various co-owners in the shrotriem village of Ananthamadugu on March 24,1953. Thereafter on May 27, 1953, this village was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, No. XXVI of 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the interest of the shrotriem owners was taken over by the appellant. The leases granted to the respondents were for a period of one year and one of the terms provided that the lessors were bound to extend and renew the period of lease for such period as may be desired by the lessees subject to the Rules. After the estate was taken over, the question arose whether the leases were enforceable against the Government under S. 20 (1) of the Act. In November 1953, the Manager of Estates, appointed on behalf of the Government, held that the leases were enforceable against the Government. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Nellore. Thereupon there was a revision petition by one of the co. owners of the shrotriem who was not a party to the leases before the Board of Revenue. The respondents also applied to the Government for permission to work the mines. The Government however did not grant such permission. The respondents contended that the Government had no right to withhold permission to work the mines. Therefore, the writ petition was filed asking for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining in accordance with the leases.
2. The petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant and the main contention on its behalf was that the village in question being a shrotriem inam village there was no presumption that the inam grant included the grant of sub-soil rights also to the shrotriemdars. Therefore, the respondents could not claim any rights higher than those of their lessors. In effect, the appellant had contended that the lessors had no rights to the minerals and therefore the leases even if not void within. The meaning of S. 20 of the Act would not confer any rights on the respondents to claim as a matter of right the grant of permission to work the mines from the appellant and that it was entirely within the discretion of the State whether to grant a mining lease or not in accordance with the Rules. It was also stated that the revision filed before the Board of Revenue had been stayed as the points raised before the Board were covered by the questions involved in the writ petition.
3. On these pleading the main question that arose for decision was whether the shrotriemdars had any rights in the minerals at all and were entitled to grant leases thereof. If the shrotriemdars had no right in the minerals the grant of leases by them would be of no value and would not entitle the respondents to claim a mining lease under the Rules from the appellant as a matter of right.
4. The learne
