Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
SANAT KUMAR BURMAN - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, BURDWAN - Respondent
C. R. 7441-44 (W) Of 1974
Decided On : 12/07/1978
MINES AND MINERALS - BRICK EARTH - MINOR MINERAL - LEASE - WEST BENGAL MINOR MINERAL RULES, 1973 - VALIDITY - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DECLARING BRICK EARTH AS MINOR MINERAL - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - ROYALTY - PAYMENT - LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming ownership of a brick field, challenged the demand for a license and royalty for brick-making under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules. The petitioner argued that brick earth was not a minor mineral and that the demands were contrary to law.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that brick earth was declared a minor mineral by the Central Government notification and that the petitioner was liable to take a mining lease under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973. The court found that the impugned notices were issued by authorities included within the definition of the District Authority and other officers under the Rules and that there was no violation of any provisions of the Act and Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether brick earth is a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957? 2. Whether the petitioner is liable to take a mining lease under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973? 3. Whether the impugned notices were issued by competent authorities?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Central Government notification declaring brick earth as a minor mineral and the Supreme Court decision in Banarasi Das Chadha and Bros. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, which held that brick earth is a minor mineral under the Act. 2. The court held that the petitioner was liable to take a mining lease under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973, since he intended to have mining operations in respect of the brick earth. 3. The court held that the impugned notices were issued by authorities included within the definition of the District Authority and other officers under the Rules and that there was no violation of any provisions of the Act and Rules.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and made no order as for costs.
( 1 ) THESE Rules are for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents, the Collector of Burdwan and others not to compel the petitioner to take licence for making bricks in the land or to create any disturbance in the running of his brick field thereon and also not to realise the licence fee or cess from him. There is further prayer for quashing the orders contained In Annexures 'b', 'c' and 'd' to the petition.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a brick field in mouza Kandorsona, P. S. Burdwan situated in plots Nos. 567, 568, 573, 574 and 1119. The petitioner claimed to be a lessee from his lessor who is a raiyat under the State. The petitioner had been carrying on the business of brick manufacturing in the aforesaid lands since 1973. The Junior Land Reforms Officer, Burdwan in March 1973 treated the business as being carried on without permission of the Collector on the basis of the provisions under Sections 4 (a-A) and 4 (2-B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner was compelled to take a licence thereunder, Annexure 'b' is a letter dated September 12, 1973 proposing the grant (of) a short-term lease up to November 30, 1973 for extraction and removal of brick-earth from the aforesaid plots subject to the deposit of the amounts mentioned therein, as also stated herein (i) Rs. 290/- towards the fee for extraction of brick-earth for manufacturing 2,00,000 bricks (r) Rs. 2/- per 100 cft. (ii) Rs. 200/- towards preliminary expenses and (iii) Rs. 145/- towards security deposit. Excepting the last amount no amount was refundable in any case and if during the lease period the petitioner would extract more than 2,00,000 bricks of brick-earth he would be required to deposit a further fee of Rs. 2/- per 100 cft. of brick-earth before further extraction and removal. There are further conditions for maintaining accounts of raising and despatch of brick-earth as per direction to be intimated later and the petitioner was also required to execute a lease deed after making the necessary deposit.
( 3 ) ANNEXURE 'c' is another letter dated October 22, 1973 to the petitioner issuing certain directions in regard to maintenance of books of accounts i. e. machine numbered receipts to the purchasers of bricks showing quantity of bricks for every truck or cart including the bricks removed for the lessee's own purpose. It also provided for maintenance of a register showing the daily removal of bricks with reference to the receipts issued and quantity by each receipt --truck number and cart driver's name etc. The letter further provided that the lessee is to obtain further grant through the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Burdwan, from the Additional District Magistrate (L. R.) Burdwan for further extraction of the minerals from the said area. An-nexure 'd' is a memo dated May 23, 1974 by the Cess Deputy Collector, Burdwan, calling upon the petitioner to submit return of Profit and Loss Account.
( 4 ) THE petitioner prayed for issuance of reliefs on two grounds: (1) It was stated that Sections 4 (2-A) and 4 (2-B) have been declared to be ultra vires by this Court in Shyam Sundar v. Addl. District Magistrate, Bankura,. Accordingly no steps could be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. (2) Even under the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, Section 3 (e) and the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules (1959) Rule 17 (i) no royalty was payable for digging up ordinary earth for brick making as brick earth was not a minor mineral as held in the case of State of West Bengal v. Jagadamba Prasad Singh,. The State Government accordingly had no power to make rules under the said Act in respect of brick earth and had no right to insist. upon the respondents for taking out permits for the use of ordinary earth for the manufacture of bricks and pay royalty therefor and the demands made in that behalf were all contra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
