Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 748 of 2016
Decided on : 24-11-2022
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, and its application to the rights of the Vadar community for stone crushing.
Headnote:
Barren Lands - Government Resolution - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 15; Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968, Rule 4A - The court discussed the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh, and Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968. The court found that the impugned Government Resolution was in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and did not take away the rights conferred upon the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968. The court interpreted Rule 4A to permit the traditional profession of stone crushing by hand without payment of any fee or royalty, but not for commercial use or lease of barren/grassy lands belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, which directed the removal of encroachments or unauthorized construction on barren land/grassy land and on the common village land. The petitioner, representing the Vadar community, claimed that the resolution took away their rights conferred under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned Government Resolution did not take away the rights conferred upon the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968, and was in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 took away the rights conferred upon the Vadar community under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 4A, which was found to permit the traditional profession of stone crushing by hand without payment of any fee or royalty, but not for commercial use or lease of barren/grassy lands belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was dismissed/disposed of, as the court found the impugned Government Resolution to be in consonance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and not illegal.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ direction and/or order to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of State of Maharashtra.
2. At the outset it is required to be noted that considering the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; (2011) 11 SCC 396, the State of Maharashtra has issued the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 under which a decision is taken that the encroachments or unauthorized construction on barren land/grassy land and on the common village land may be removed immediately and proceeding may be started through local Gram Panchayat, Municipal Council, Nagar Parishad etc., by preparing special program. It is further resolved that henceforth the barren land or land utilized for public only may be considered only if non-availability of other lands for public utility and public purpose run by the various Departments of Central and State Governments and that the barren lands/grassy lands or the land under utilization of the villagers shall not be approved to any person, private institute, organization for any motive/purpose.
2.1 In the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) this Court issued the directions to protect the barren lands/grassy lands to be utilized for cattle to be used for public only. This Court directed to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments were directed to do the needful. In line with the said directions the State of Maharashtra has issued the impugned resolution.
3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is established for the welfare of “Vadar” community within the State of Maharashtra. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that Vadar community has been notified as Nomadic Tribe by the State Government and whose ancestor family profession is stone crushing, removing stone, etc. That in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957, the State of Maharashtra has framed the Rules titled as the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1968). As per Rule 4A, family of Vadar community can remove stone up to 200 brass annually by stone crushing by hand, without payment of any fee or royalty, however, with the previous permission and writing of the Collector or Additional Collector as the case may be, from any private land or un-assessed Government waste land not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
3.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the family of the Vadar communities were granted lease/permission for mining which were renewed from time to time. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that however, on misreading and/or mis-interpretation of the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) and in view of the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, the family of Vadar community are not granted any lease and/or the lease are not renewed. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Government Resolution takes away the right available to the family of the Vadar community conferred under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968.
4. Having heard Shri Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kharde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and having gone through and considered the impugned Government Resolution read wit
