Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M.K.S. Menon, P.A. Augustine
For the Respondent: S. Kannan

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021, was upheld as constitutional and valid. It aims to serve the public interest and promote uniformity in mineral rights across regions, particularly vesting mineral rights in the State without requiring compensation to landowners for mineral rights vested in the State (!) (!) .

2. The State has the legislative competence to enact such laws under relevant entries of the Constitution, specifically those pertaining to land and mineral regulation. The Act is within the powers granted to the State and is not ultra vires (!) (!) (!) .

3. The Act is not in conflict with central legislation concerning mineral development, such as the MMDR Act, 1957, nor with laws related to land acquisition and rehabilitation, such as the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It explicitly overrides these laws through a notwithstanding clause (!) (!) (!) .

4. The retrospective application of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, from the date of its enactment in 2019, was deemed lawful and proper, given the legislative history and prior ordinances (!) (!) .

5. The State's authority to levy royalty is recognized, but only from the date the Act came into force. Prior to that, in the Malabar area, minerals in private land are considered the property of landowners, and the State cannot claim royalty for minerals extracted from landowners' private property before the Act’s enactment (!) (!) .

6. The ownership of minerals in the Malabar region, prior to the Act, was affirmed as belonging to landowners, not the State, based on legal principles that define property as rights guaranteed and protected by law. This includes the understanding that minerals are part of the land until extracted (!) (!) (!) .

7. The State retains the authority to regulate mineral extraction activities, requiring statutory permissions and licenses, even when mineral rights are owned privately. Unauthorized extraction is illegal, and the State can recover the value of minerals, fines, and penalties (!) (!) (!) .

8. The ownership of mineral rights and the obligation to pay royalties are distinct; even when minerals vest in private owners, the State can still claim royalties if statutory provisions apply, especially after the declaration that minerals are part of the land and subject to regulation (!) (!) (!) .

9. Certain rules and provisions, such as Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, are within the delegated legislative powers of the State and do not violate constitutional rights such as Article 19(1)(g). These rules are valid and enforceable unless explicitly repealed or amended (!) (!) .

10. The courts have consistently held that the deprivation of property, in the context of vesting mineral rights in the State, does not require compensation if it is done under law for public purpose, and the law provides for such vesting without compensation. The rights to natural resources are considered as part of the public trust and are managed as shared natural wealth (!) (!) (!) (!) .

11. The State's power to impose royalties and regulate mining activities is derived from constitutional entries and legislation, and such powers are exercised within the legal framework, respecting the ownership rights of landowners while ensuring public resource management (!) (!) (!) .

12. In cases of illegal extraction or without statutory permissions, the State is entitled to recover the value of the minerals, fines, and penalties, and demand compliance with licensing requirements for future operations (!) (!) (!) .

13. The validity of demand notices and orders issued by authorities for recovery of mineral value and fines, including claims of royalties, is upheld where extraction was unauthorized or illegal, and where statutory permissions were not obtained (!) (!) (!) (!) .

14. The courts have clarified that the rights and obligations concerning mineral extraction depend on the timing of the extraction relative to the enforcement of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, and that claims for royalties prior to the enforcement date are not sustainable in the Malabar area (!) (!) (!) .

15. Overall, the legal framework affirms that mineral rights are property rights, but the State has the authority to regulate, control, and vest these rights in the public interest, with certain protections for landowners, especially regarding compensation and prior rights, which are recognized under specific circumstances.