SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 204

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Raja Anand Brahma Shah, Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 656 of 1964, D/-16-9-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate, (M/s. V. P. Misra, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Metha, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for the State of U. P., (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with them ), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, K.L.Mehta, O.P.RANA, S.K.MEHTA, SHANTI BHUSHAN, V.P.MISRA

Headnote:Mining operation — Minerals pass with the rights to the surface unless there is express or implied reservation in grant

       

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Dated November 2, 1962 Dismissing the writ petition No. 454 of 1955 filed by the appellant -Raja Anand Brahma Shah.

2. The appellant was the Zamindar of Pargana Agori lying to the south of Kaimur Range in the district of Mirzapur. On October 4, 1950, a notification was issued by the State Government under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" ) stating that the area of 409.6 acres in the village of Markundi Ghurma Pargana Agori was needed for a public purpose. The purpose specified in the notification was "for limestone quarry". The notification provided that the case being one of urgency, the provisions o sub-s.(1) of S. 17 of the Act applied to the land and it was, therefore, directed under sub-s (4) of S. 17 that the provisions of S. 5A of the Act would not apply to the land. On December 12, 1950, a further notification was issued under S. 6 of the Act declaring that the Governor was satisfied that the land mentioned in the notification was needed for public purposes and directed the Collector of Mirazpur to take order for acquisition of the land under S. 7 of the Act. The Collector of Mirazpur was further directed by the notification under S. 17 (1) of the Act, the case being one of urgency, to take possession of any waste or arable land on the expiration of the notice mentioned in S. 9 (1) , though no award under S. 11 had been made. On November 19,1950, possession of the land was taken by the Collector of Mirazpur and the same was handed over to the Administrative Officer, Government Cement Factory, Churk. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on January 7, 1952 stating that the amount of compensation was Rs. 23,638-13-7. The appellant thereafter filed an application under S. 18 of the Act for a reference to the Civil Court in regard to the amount of compensation payable. A reference to the Civil Court was accordingly made and the matter is still pending in the Civil Court as Land Acquisition Reference No. 4 of 1952. On May 2, 1955, the Writ Petition giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant in the Allahabad High Court. It is alleged by the appellant that the acquisition of the land was not for a public purpose and the acquisition proceedings were consequently without jurisdiction It was also stated that the State Government had no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Act to the land in dispute as it was neither waste nor arable land. It was further claimed that the mines and minerals in the land belonged to the appellant and as such he was entitled to compensation for the same. The appellant accordingly prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notifications of the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and further proceedings in pursuance of that notice in the land acquisitions case. The appellant also prayed that the State Government should be directed to pay compensation to the appellant for all the lime-stone removed from the land. By its judgment, dated November 2, 1962 the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding (1) that the petitioner was not the owner of mines and minerals and was not entitled to compensation for them (2) the land had been acquired for a public purpose, and (3) that the provisions of S. 17 of the Act were applicable to the case and there was no illegality in the notifications of the State Government under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act.

3. The first question to be considered is whether the notification of the State Government under S. 4 of the Act, dated October 4, 1950 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the acquisition of the land was not for a public purpose. It was alleged for the appellant that the lime-stone extracted from quarries situated in the land was used by the State Government for the manufacture of cement which was sold for profit in open market and wa




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top