IMPORTANT POINT
[The judgment establishes that mineral rights in privately held land vest in the State, and landowners are entitled only to compensation for damages caused by mining operations, not to the minerals themselves.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In First Appeal 72/2009, the Appellant/ Original Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.132/2004 challenges the Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/4/2009 dismissing her suit filed for eviction of the Respondent No.1/ Original Defendant No.1 from carrying out any activities of quarrying in the suit property bearing Survey No.213/1, for mesne profits from Defendant No.1 and for a relief of declaration that the lease agreement dtd. 28/9/2000 between the Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 permitting Defendant No.1 to carry out mining operations for extracting basalt, a minor mineral, to be null and void and opposed to public policy.

2. In First Appeal No.73/2009, the Appellant/ Original Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.133/2004 challenges the Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/4/2009 dismissing her suit filed for eviction of the Respondent No.1/ Original Defendant No.1 from carrying out any activities of quarrying in the suit property bearing Survey No.213/1, for mesne profits from Defendant No.1 and for a relief of declaration that the lease agreement dtd. 28/9/2000 between the Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 permitting Defendant No.1 to carry out mining operations for extracting basalt, a minor mineral, to be null and void and opposed to public policy

3. Since the grievance raised in both the appeals/suits is exactly the same, concerning the same suit property and the same point of law raised therein, the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of, with the consent of all the parties, with a common judgment. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the Appellant in both appeals is referred to as Plaintiff while the Respondent No.1, though being different persons in the appeals/suits, shall be referred to herein as Defendant No.1 as each of them is arraigned in the suits as the lessee with respect to the leasehold rights granted by the Government of Goa under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1985, to them under separate lease agreements both dtd. 28/9/2000, challenged in the suits. The Directorate of Mines and the State of Goa have been respectively arraigned as Defendants No.2 and 3 in these suits and shall be referred to accordingly in this judgment.

4. Both these suits have been instituted by the Plaintiff on the basis of the following undisputed facts as seen from the pleadings of the parties:-

1. That the Plaintiff is the owner of the property known as "Baincho Uddo" situated at Santa Barbara, Village Panchayat of Merces, Morombi-O-Grande, Tiswadi, Goa presently surveyed under Survey No. 213/1 (the suit property), by virtue of her marriage to late Hipolito Policarpo Pegado;

2. That by two separate lease deeds, both executed on 12/7/1986, the late husband of the Plaintiff leased two separate plots, each admeasuring 40, 000 square metres respectively to Faustino Matias Francisco de Rego (the Defendant No.1 in RCS No.132/2004) and to M/s Gervasio Fernandes and Sons (the Defendant No.1 in RCS No.133/2004). In each of these lease deeds, the rent reserved for allowing the lessees to explore stone quarries in their respective plots, for extraction of basalt stone was Rs.10, 000.00

3. That Hipolito Pegado expired on 17/9/1988 after which, the lease deeds, which expired by efflux of time in ten years i.e. by 12/7/1996 were not renewed by the Plaintiff, wife of Hipolito, and the Plaintiff sent the Defendant No.1 a notice dtd. 28/7/1997 to desist from carrying out further quarrying operations and to return possession of the suit plots.

4. That the Defendants No.2 and 3, who have entered into an agreement of lease dtd. 28/9/2000 with the Defendant No.1, granting Defendant No.1 the right to extract basalt metal, a minor mineral, in terms of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1984 (the said Rules), have no right to enter upon such a lease, which lease is contrary to law, hence a declaration was sought to declare such lease agreements as illegal and void and being opposed to public policy.

5. In the writt