The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mineral rights vested in the State, and pattadars cannot claim rights to exploit the mines and minerals in patta lands outside the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder.

Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

This Writ Appeal raises the question of the right to minerals, namely, extraction and removal of granite blocks and rubble from patta lands in the State of Kerala. The question also arises incidentally as to the-validity of the Proclamation issued by His Highness, the Maharaja of Travancore dated 14-6-1881 vesting mineral rights in all lands in the State consequent upon the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The learned Single Judge held that the mineral rights vest in the State. He also upheld the validity of the Proclamation issued by the Maharaja of Travancore dated 14-6-1881 and refused to quash Exts.P5 and P6 orders.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant obtained three quarrying permits on 22-10-1991,22-11-1991 and 6-3-1992 (Exts. P1, P1(a) and P1(b) issued by the Tahsildar, Attingal in Form E under the'Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967' for extracting and removing 50 tonnes each of rubble from the lands of pattadars of 1.23 acres taken on lease by the appellant. He found stones were of export quality and so, instead of extracting rubble for use as ballast for railways, the appellant extracted bigger blocks useful for export. The rate of royalty payable for rubble, for which alone the appellant had permits, was Rs.0.90 per cubic metre, as per item 3 of Schedule I, as against Rs.50.00 per cubic metre for the granite stones, which fell under item 5 of Schedule I. The granite stones were extracted by the appellant and sold to Plakattu Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appellant extracted a total quantity of 60 cubic metres of granite stones out of which 50 cubic metres were of export quality.

3. Realising the illegality in extracting granite stones rather than rubble, the appellant applied under Ext.P2 dated 10-12-1991 before the Director of Mining and Geology to direct the department to accept additional royalty for whatever blocks had been extracted already and to issue transport permits for the same. He wrote Ext.P3 letter dated 31-12-1991 to the Geologist, Trivandrum admitting that the latter had inspected and warned the appellant that he should not continue extraction of these 'dimension' stones. In Ext.P3 appellant sought permission to extract these 'dimension' stones. In Ext.P4 dated 31-1-1992 by the appellant to the Geologist, he even admitted the 'offence' and sought permission of withdrawal of 10 blocks of 'dimension' stones of 50 cubic metres, to Tuticorin for export abroad.

4. As the permission was not granted, he filed O.P.No.3682 of 1992 on 18-3-1992 and the O.P. was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 27-3-1992 directing the respondents not to interfere with the removal of stones or the blocks subject to appellant paying royalty at Rs.50/- per cubic metre. The said judgment was set aside in W.A.No.451 of 1992 on 28-5-1992 by one of us (Jagannadha Rao, CJ.) and Krishnamoorlhy, J. After referring to the significant admissions by the appellant in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 about his illegal extraction of stones and commission of offences, the Bench directed the authorities to dispose of Exts.P2 to P4 in accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, the Director of Mining and Geology passed Ext.P5 order dated 2-1-1993 rejecting the appellant's request. The Geologist in his turn passed Ext.P6 order dated 2-1-1993 slating that the appellant indulged in illicit quarrying in extracting granite blocks, that this was in violation of the Act and Rules, and so the appellant cannot be allowed to remove the granite stones so illegally extracted, even if he was prepared n pay the rent, royalty, tax or fine. These orders, Exts.P5 and P6, have been questioned n O.P.No.2221 of 1993 and the O.P. has been dismissed on 13-4-1993 by the learned Single Judge. It is against the said judgment that this W.A. is preferred by the writ petitioner.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mineral rights at this place in Triva