Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, A. D. KOSHAL, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Vinodkumar Shantilal Gosalia – Appellant
Versus
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal – Respondent
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. : These appeals are by certificates granted by the Delhi High Court under Art. 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution in regard to its judgment dated Feb. 20, 1970 in C. W. No. 712 of 1968.
2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the grant of mining rights in respect of an area situated in the villages of Karanzol and Sonaulim in Goa, the rival claimants being the appellant and respondent 1. Respondent-1 claims preference over the appellant by reason of certain events which happened prior to the conquest and annexation of Goa by the Government of India on Dec. 20, 1961. Before we turn to those events, it would be useful to notice the relevant provisions of the Mining Laws which were in force in Portuguese Goa.
3. During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu were governed by the "Portuguese Colonial Mining laws". Under those laws a person could, in stated circumstances, make a "declaration" in writing stating that "he has discovered a mineral deposit". Such a declaration was called a "Mining Manifest" and the person making the declaration was called a "Manifestor. The object of making a
Dabmia dadri Coment Ltd. v. C.I. T.
State of Saurashtra v. Memon Haji Ismil Haji
Jagannath Agamala v. State of orissa Omsa
States of Saurastramhtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla
Ptomod Chandra v. State of orissa
State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali
overruled : Virendera singh v. states of U. P.
explained : J. Fernandes and Co. v. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.