Back
Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo C.J. & Modi, J.
Bhoor Chand - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
Civil Writ application No. 50 of 1955
Decided On : November 04, 1955
The press-notes cannot be interpreted so as to terminate the rights of ownerships, if any, of the earstwhile States or their successor States with respect to salt where such a right is vested in the one State or the other, nor do the Jagirdars merely by granting a lease of the land containing certain deposits of salt could divest the State of its rights of ownership. The mere freedom to manufacture salt without obtaining a licence from the Government of India would not and cannot serve as any justification for interference with such right of ownership. In such a case it cannot be said that the party seeking to manufacture salt has lawful access to the relevant land for the purpose of manufacturing salt.
Though it may be accepted that salt has been provided for as a separate item from mineral in the legislative lists for the purposes of the Constitution, it would not be correct to interpret the word "mineral" in the Marwar Land Revenue Act with reference to the provisions of and its use in the Constitution of India which had not even come into being at the time when the Marwar Act came to be passed. We must seek the interpretation of the word"mineral"in S.231 of the Marwar Act elsewhere The term "mine-ral" is not as inflexible in its meaning as one might at first sight suppose and is not necessarily connected with a mine, although it ordinary is, and its precise meaning in a given case will have to be fixed with reference to the particular context and in relation to the surrounding circumstances of the particular case. In the context of things the word "mineral" in the Marwar Land Revenue Act embraces suit as much as other minerals, ordinarily so understood, such as metals etc. and the legal position in the case of salt deposits or areas where salt is manufactured must be the same as in the case of mines or other minerals, that is, the right of ownership in either case vests in the State.The mere circumstance that salt in this case is produced not by excavation from the bowels of the earth but by more or less surface working cannot have any material effects to the conclusion because the salt so produced is as much a mineral under the Marwar Land Revenue Act as the other kind of salt such as rock salt, which would be without question a mineral.
The right to exploit or manufacture salt irrespective of the manner of its produc- tion whether in Khasla of Jagir, i.e.,the territory of the former State of Marwar, vested in the Government of that State or its assignee, and no Jagirdar as such could have claimed such a right, and after the integration of that State in the present State of Rajasthan, the same right became vested in the new State. As the lessor Jagirdar himself possesed no ownership with respect to any salt deposits in his Jagir, the lease obtained by the present petitioner from the Jagirdar is of no avail whatsoever so far as the manufacture of salt is concerned. The concessions granted by the Government of India for stopping up the production of salt referred to above, do not and cannot possess the effect of adversely affecting the rights of ownership in this connection vested in the former State of Marwar and now the successor State of Rajasthan so far as the territory of the former State of Marwar is concerned.
2. The petitioners case is that he had obtained the lease of some2400 bighas of land from jagirdar of Sanwarla, Tehsil Siwana, by a deed, dated 3rd December, 1952 that the had been carrying on the work of manufacture of salt over 1-1/2 acre out of the area mentioned above for the last four years and invested round about Rs. 10,000/- over such manufacture, He also states to have applied, but without success so far, for a licence, to the General Manager, Central Excise and Salt, Government of India, for the purpose of manufacturing salt over a larger area but contends that so far as the existing area, to which he has confined the manufacturing operations is concerned, namely, the one and half acre, he is perfectly within his legal rights as such manufacture is covered by a press-Dote, dated the 23rd April, 1948, issued by the Government of India under sec. 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, (No. I) of 1944. The effect of this press-note, briefly put is that the Government in their desire to step up the production of indigenous salt and to attain self-sufficiency in this vital commodity permitted free production of salt (without the necessity of obtaining any licence) by individuals or groups, on land to which they have lawful access for this purpose, and to carry on the manufacture by any process they desire i.e. by construction of pans and solar evaporation or boiling of brine or excavation of saline earth or any other process; provided that the total area of land covered by the sale works, set up by any individual or group, is not more than 10 acres. Government, however, reserved their right to take suitable preventive measures against the sale of unwholesome salt for human consumption, in the interest of national health. The position was later in 1955, and by another press-note, dated the 11th May, 1955, the Government of India laid down inter alia that after March 1, 1955, individuals or groups may freely produce salt in any land to which they have lawful access for this provided that the total area of the land covered by the salt works does not exceed 2-1/2 acres. The case of the petitioner is that he was well within his rights in manufacturing salt over 1-1/2 acre out of the total area obtained on lease by him from the jagirdar but that he had been wrongfully restrained from such manufacture by the Collector of Barmer within whose district the land in question is situate and that thereby the Collector had infringed his fundamental right to carry on his trade or business within the meaning of Art, 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner consequently prays that this Court do issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an order in the nature thereof against the Rajasthan State and the Collector Barmer and Tehsildar Siwana, who have been respectively arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in this petition. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that according to the petitioner he was carrying on the manufacture of salt by method of construction of pans and solar evaporation only.
3. The petition has been opposed by the State, which is the principal contesting party mainly on two grounds. The first contention is that in the former State of Marwar, the State was the owner of all minerals including salt, irrespective of the consideration whether the land whereon salt was produced was held in khalsa (that is territory directly governed by the State) or in jagir, and reliance is placed in support of this contention on sec. 231 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, No. 10 of 1949. and it is submitted that after the formation of the present State of Rajasthan that right devolved on and became vested in the present State, The second contention is that the petitioner was in terms of his lease in occupation of 2400bighas or 960 acres of land for the purpose of manufacturing salt and, therefore, he was not. in any c
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
