1. Dispute over ownership of sub-soil minerals in land that was resumed as invalid Lakhraj land and subsequently permanently settled with the proprietors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 24 , 25 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th January, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
The Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Bhola Nath Roy (deceased) and after him his legal representatives and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney -General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. S.N. Mukherji and B. N. Ghosh, Advocates, with them), for Appellant; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s. J. C. Ghose, S. P. Ghose and P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.N.GHOSH, B.SEN, J.C.GHOSH, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE, S.P.GHOSH
B.N.GHOSH, B.SEN, J.C.GHOSH, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE, S.P.GHOSH
Persons with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land is permanently settled possess the same proprietary rights as proprietors of estates, including ownership of sub-soil minerals, provided the land is held from the Government and not as a subordinate tenure.
Headnote:(A) Regulations of 1793 and 1819 - Proprietary rights in resumed invalid Lakhraj land - Right to sub-soil minerals - Persons with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land is permanently settled are considered proprietors of the soil with the same rights as proprietors of estates, including rights to sub-soil minerals. (Paras 11, 12, 21)
(B) Proprietary Rights - When a settlement is made with the actual proprietors of the soil, such rights extend to the sub-soil minerals unless expressly excluded. The principle that minerals do not form part of a grant made by a proprietor of a tenure at a fixed rent does not apply where the land is held directly from the Government and not as a subordinate tenure. (Paras 18, 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, as proprietors of certain lands, sued for damages after discovering that the defendant company had extracted underground coal, causing land subsidence. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs, holding resumed invalid Lakhraj land, had no title to the sub-soil minerals, arguing that the original grants, being of a specific religious or charitable nature, did not include such rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land was resumed as invalid Lakhraj tenure and permanently settled with the plaintiffs' predecessors. Under the relevant regulations, such settlers are treated as proprietors of the soil, similar to proprietors of estates, and thus possess rights to the sub-soil minerals.
Issues: Whether a person with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land was permanently settled possesses rights in the sub-soil minerals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that regulations governing the settlement of revenue-free lands established that grantees of invalid Lakhraj lands have the same property rights as proprietors of estates. Since proprietors of estates are recognized as actual proprietors of the soil with rights to sub-soil minerals, the same applies to those with resumed invalid Lakhraj land. Furthermore, because the land was held from the Government and not as a subordinate tenure from another proprietor, the limitation on mineral rights typically associated with certain subordinate grants does not apply.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether permanent settlement of resumed invalid Lakhraj land confers proprietary rights to sub-soil minerals or is limited by the nature of original revenue-free grants. (Para 4 , 6 , 26 )
3. Analysis of Regulations XIX, VIII, and I of 1793 establishes that proprietors of settled land possess the same rights as zamindars, including ownership of the soil. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
4. Persons with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land is permanently settled are proprietors of the soil and thus possess rights to sub-soil minerals. (Para 12 , 21 , 26 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the decree granting the plaintiffs rights to the minerals under the land is upheld. (Para 27 )
6. Do persons with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land is settled have rights to sub-soil minerals?
Yes. Under Regulation XIX of 1793, such persons are considered proprietors of the land with the same rights as proprietors of estates (zamindars). Since zamindars are recognized as proprietors of the soil, the right to sub-soil minerals extends to those with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land is settled. (Para 11 , 12 , 21 )
7. How does the status of a proprietor of the soil relate to sub-soil mineral rights?
The right of proprietors to sub-soil minerals follows from their status as proprietors of the soil. This principle is recognized for zamindars and extends to any person recognized as an actual proprietor of the soil under the permanent settlement regulations. (Para 13 , 17 , 18 )
8. Does the principle that minerals are not part of a zamindar's grant to a tenure-holder apply to land settled by the Government?
No. The principle that minerals are not included in a grant from a zamindar to a subordinate tenure-holder does not apply when the land is held directly from the Government as a proprietor. (Para 20 , 26 )
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta, raise the question whether the person with whom a resumed invalid Lakhraj (revenue free) land was permanently settled has rights in the sub soil minerals or not. The necessary facts are briefly these :
2. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the land in suit in C. S. Khatian No. 611 and Sub-Khatians Nos. 612 and 613 of village Sripur in Touzi No. 2597 of the Burdwan Collectorate.
3. The Maharaja of Burdwan is the proprietor of the lands in village Sripur appertaining to Touzi No. 12 of Burdwan Collectorate. He let out those lands to the Pals and Goswamis of Sripur in Putni right. The Putnidars also took coal mining lease of those lands from the Maharaja and, thereafter, both the Maharaja and the Putnidars granted the coal mining lease of those lands to one P. K. Chatterji of Ikrah who, in his turn, granted a sub-lease of the same to Messrs. Lodna Colliery Co. Ltd., the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant company, the Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd.
4. A portion of the lands in suit, subsided and on enquiry the plaintiffs found that the defendant company had cut away a large quantity of the underground coal from the lands in suit. It is on account of such unjustified conduct of the defendant company that the plaintiffs, on the basis of their proprietary right, sued for the recovery of damages for coal wrongfully taken away by the defendant from the land in suit and for other wrongs. The defendant company contested the suit and denied the plaintiff s alleged rights on the ground, inter alia that the plaintiffs had no title to the sub-soil of the land in suit and consequently to the coal. The contention really is that the land in suit had been permanently settled with the plaintiffs after it had been resumed as invalid Lakhraj land an that such settlement conferred no better rights than what they originally possessed on account of the land in suit being granted to their predecessors-in-interest under Brahmottar and Debutter grants, the grantees under which had no rights in the sub-soil of the land granted.
5. The Trial Court held that the invalid Lakhraj tenure in the land in suit in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs was resumed by the Government under the provisions of Regulation II of 1819 and, thereafter, was permanently settled with them at the fixed revenue and that therefore the plaintiffs had right to the minerals under the soil of the land settled with them. It accordingly decreed the suit in part and the decree was confirmed by the High Court.
6. It is contended for the appellant that the person with whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land had been settled has no rights in the sub-soil. The respondents rely on the provisions of the Regulations enacted by the Governor-General in Council in support of their claim to the sub-soil in such land held by them.
7. The Governor-General in Council passed a number of Regulations on May 1, 1793. We shall first consider Regulation XIX of 1793.
8. Regulation XIX of 1792 was made for re-enacting with modifications the Rules passed by the Governor-General in Council on December 1, 1790, for trying the validity of the titles of persons holding, or claiming a right to hold, lands exempted from the payment of revenue to Government, under grants and for determining the amount of the annual assessment to be imposed on lands so held which might be adjudged or become liable to the payment of public revenue. The preamble makes it clear that the Regulation was creating an agency for determining the title of the proprietors of land who claimed to hold it free from the liability to pay revenue on account of certain grants, that from time to time the British Government had declared all grants for holding land exempt from the payment of revenue without their sanction since the date of the accession of the East India Company to the Diwani on August 12, 1965, illegal and void and that no s
