JUDGMENT

Venkatachala, J.

1. In these civil appeals by special leave, of the State of Punjab, correctness of the common judgment dated September 16, 1982 by which Regular Second Appeal Nos. 902-913 of 1973 were dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is questioned.

2. Facts, giving rise to these civil appeals lie in a narrow compass. In the District of Gurdaspur certain landowners had permitted different brick manufacturers to remove brick-earth from lands in their respective estates on leases or licences granted by them. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (for short the Act) having come into force in the State of Punjab, the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules) were also made and brought into force with effect from April 25, 1.964. With the coming into force of the provisions of the Act and the Rules in the State of Punjab, its officers took steps to prevent the said brick manufacturers from removing the brick-earth from the lands in the estates on the strength of the leases and licences executed in their favour by the landowners without obtaining the mining licences and paying royalty, under the Rules. The said manufacturers of bricks although removed brick-earth from the concerned lands by paying royalty and obtaining licences for some years, they filed suits in civil courts of original jurisdiction to restrain by perpetual injunctions the State of Punjab and its officers from demanding payment of royalty for removal of brick-earth from owners lands and insisting upon obtaining of mining licences or permits for the purpose. The relief of injunctions sought in those suits was based on their claim that notwithstanding the fact that brick-earth was regarded as minor mineral under the Rules, State of Punjab not being the owner of brick-earth in the concerned lands, there arose no need to pay royalty to State for removal of such brick-earth and to obtain mining licences or permits from the State. The claim so made, having found favour with the civil courts of first instance, the suits were decreed and reliefs sought for therein were granted. The first appeals carried against such decrees by the State of Punjab before the first appellate courts did not meet with success. Further regular second appeals carried to the High Court met with the same fate when they were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that court by a common judgment dated September 16, 1982. It is that common judgment, which has become the subject-matter of the Punjab States present civil appeals by special leave.

3. On behalf of the State it was contended firstly, that the courts below should not have, on the basis of entries in Wajib-ul-arz pertaining to the lands of the estates of the landowners, found that the brick-earth in such lands did not vest in the State and secondly, that the lower appellate courts when they were of the view that the entries in Wajib-ul-arz required the drawing of the presumption that the brick-earth in the concerned lands belonged to the lands owners, they should have seen that such presumption was a rebuttable presumption and as such called for setting aside the decrees of the courts of first instance, and remittal of the suits to the courts of first instance with a direction to them to afford an opportunity to the State to adduce rebuttal evidence. Both these contentions cannot merit our acceptance for the reasons which we shall presently state.

4. As some of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short the Revenue Act) which directly bear on the said contentions would be helpful in appreciating the merit of those contentions, they are set out at the outset. Section 31 which deals with record-of-rights relating to each estate comprised of the lands where brick-earth is being removed by the brick manufacturers reads:

"31. Record-of-rights and documents included therein.--(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Chapter, there shall be record-of-rights for e