( 20 ) IN so far as shrotriem inam lands are concerned, it has been held, in The secretary of State for India v. Srinivasachariar, 1921 L. R. 48 LA. 56 : 40 M. L. J. 262 : I. L. R. 44 Mad. 421 pages 429, 431. that in the absence of an express covenant creating such an interest in the land as would vest the minerals in the grantee, the government's rights to the sale ownership thereof are not affected. Sir Lawrence jenkins observed at page 429:" A grant of this description may be no more than an assignment of revenue, and even where it is or includes a grant of land, what interest in the land passed must depend on the language of the instrument and the circumstances of each case. "at page 431, dealing with the use of the word "assessment," it was further observed:" Even in this litigation there is the same incorrect use of words used, as where the payment demanded by the Government is spoken of as assessment whereas the demand is for a payment in the nature of royalty for the use and consumption of that which belongs to the Government. Inaccuracies of this class can in no way assist the plaintiffs. "in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Balarami Reddy, 1963 2 S. C. J. 389 : (1963) 2 An. W. R. (SC) 90 : 1963 2 MLJ (SC) 90 : AIR 1963 S. C. 264 wanchoa, J. , speaking for the

( 21 ) COURT relied upon the above Privy Council case far reiterating the view that the mere fact that a person is the holder of an inam would not by itself be enough to establish that the inam grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to the surface rights. It was held that the grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the language used in the grant and that if there are no words in the grant from which the grant of sub-soil rights can be properly inferred, the inam grant would only convey the surface rights to the grantee. The inam grant therefore could not by itself be equated to a complete transfer for value of all that was in the grantor. It is therefore clear that the petitioner who was an inamdar could not, before the grant of a ryotwari patta, claim the sub-soil rights, unless he could show by the production of the grant that those sub-soil rights also, were conveyed to him, which has not been done.

( 22 ) EVEN so, Mr. Kuppuswamy contends that after the abolition of the inams the grant of a ryotwari patta placed the petitioner in the same position as any o'ther grantee of that tenure, and if that tenure makes him the full proprietor not only of the surface rights but of the sub-soil rights as well, he would also be entitled to the same notwithstanding the fact that even if under the inam, he had no such rights. As we have already pointed out, even under the old Board's Standing Orders, ryotwari tenure was not classified in lands coming under Grade A, in which the government have no claim to minerals. It is at the most classified under Grade B, where the Government claims a share. But this view of the Government has changed by 1958, when it was declared that the owner of a ryotwari patta is entitled only to work the minerals on the land on payment of a separate assessment in addition to the usual assessment for the surface cultivation. The use of the word "assessment" for working the minerals, as pointed out by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Srinivasachariar's case, 1921 L. R. 48 I. A. 56 : 40 MLJ 262: ILR 44 Mad 421. is an inaccurate use for the payment in the nature of royalty for the use and consumption of that which belongs to the Government. These observations would indicate that the separate assessment for mining the minerals, apart from the assessment for the use of the surface rights, is a royalty payable to the Government for mining the minerals belonging to the Government. In H. R. S. Mutthy v. Collector of Chittoor, 1964 2 SCJ 557 : 1964 2 MLJ (SC) 125 : 1964 2 Anwr (SC) 125 : 1964 6 SCR 666 : AIR 1965 SC 177 rajagapala Ayyangar, J. , dealing with the meaning of the word "royalty" in section 79 (1) of the Madras District boards Act, stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document