A ryotwari pattadar has no ownership of the minerals below the surface of the land, and the State as a co-owner of the minerals could only insist upon additional assessment in respect of the minerals owned by the pattadar, but had no right to refuse renewal of the lease to work the quarries.

K. VEERASWAMI, C. J. :- These appeals are from a common order of Srinivasan, J., who dismissed the petitions of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to the respondent-State Government to forbear from dispossessing or interfering with his right to quarry limestone in Survey No. 59/2 of an extent of 1 acre 66 cents and No. 86/1 of an extent of 10 acres and 31 cents, both situate

in Moror village, Sankari taluk of Salem Dt. He had taken out lease deeds from the ryotwari pattadars of the lands for quarrying limestone, and tripartite agreements were executed between the ryotwari pattadars and the State Government as required by the rules. On the expiry of the lease in respect of Survey No. 86/1, the appellant applied for a further term of lease, or in effect, for renewal of it. But by an order dated 14-11-1962, the Government from the Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, declined to grant the application. Likewise, in the case of the other land too, the Government purported to terminate the lease. The ground of the Government was, that the limestone available in the area was of flux grade, and would be required for the proposed Steel Plant to be set up by the Government at Salem. Srinivasan, J. rejected an argument to the contrary and held that a ryotwari pattadar had no ownership of the minerals below the surface of the land, and it is this contention which is reiterated before us.

2. Mr. Vedantachari, for the appellant, pressed on us that a ryotwari pattadar is a proprietor of the soil, including the minerals, and that the State as a co-owner of the minerals could only insist upon additional assessment in respect of the minerals owned by the pattadar, but had no right to refuse renewal of the lease to work the quarries. We agree with Srinivasan, J., that this contention cannot be accepted. The ryotwari tenure was introduced for purposes of land revenue, and convenient collection thereof. The essence of the system consists in the classification of the soil according to tharams, ascertaining the net produce fixing and collecting a fraction of the net produce as land revenue, eliminating middle-man and bringing the pattadar in direct relationship with the State, and the right of the pattadar to relinquish at his will, and in case of default in payment of revenue, the liability of the holding being brought to sale. The system is essentially a revenue arrangement under which so long as the pattadar paid the assessment, he would not be disturbed from his holding. In theory, the ryotwari pattadar is a kind of a tenant with a right to hold his tenure so long as he pays the assessment. But in practice, he is the full owner, who is entitled to sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise deal with his holding-Vide Rajagopalachariar v. State of Madras, 1959-2 Mad LJ 344 : (AIR 1960 Mad 543) and Kunhikoman v. State of

Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723. In the second case, the Supreme Court observed that though the ryotwari pattadar was virtually like a proprietor, and had many of the advantages of such a proprietor, he could still relinquish or abandon his land in favour of the Government, and that it was because of this position that the ryotwari pattadar was never considered a proprietor of the land under his patta though he had many of the advantages of a proprietor. It is in this sense that the Land Encroachment Act by Section 2 (1) does not declare the property of any person held under a ryotwari tenure to be the property of the Government. So, as a ryotwari pattadar, he has every right to the use of the surface of the soil, but his proprietary right, if any, in our view, does not extend to the minerals of the soil. It was a well established proposition that all minerals underground belonged to the Crown, and now to the State, except in so far as the State has parted with the same wholly or partly in favour of an individual or body.

3. But our attention is invited to the Mining Manual which, under Chapter