No cost of the materials lying under the sub-soil is payable to the land owner.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. The second respondent before the Principal Sub-court, Tirunelveli (Reference Court under L.A.O.P) is the appellant herein. A total extent of 44.401/2 acres of lands were acquired for mining of limestone for Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Limited. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 30.4.1986 and the draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 19.5.1987. An Award was made dated 21.4.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.2,500 per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants sought for reference. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,80,000. The reference Court has granted Rs 11,000 as claimed by the claimants for the surface of the soil rights and Rs 1,69,000 for the subsoil rights, and the same had been conceded by the Reference Court. Aggrieved by this determination, the above appeals are filed.

2. According to the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant, there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act for evaluing the Mineral Wealth of the land. The mineral, if any, found under the sub-soil, is not the property of the claimants and it belongs to the State and therefore, the landowners are not entitled to claim compensation in respect of the sub-soil rights. He submitted that as per the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the mineral deposits will vest with the government. He further submitted that the claimants themselves have claimed only Rs.1,000 per acre, as against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.2,000 per acre. Whereas, the Court has granted an astronomical figure of Rs.1,80,000 on assumed calculation of Mineral deposits.

3. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf the respondent/claimants submitted that the acquisition is for the purpose of quarrying limestone deposits and the lands acquired admittedly have very fine quality of limestone deposits underneath and therefore, the value of the land should be calculated on the basis of the quantum of limestone deposits available in the land. He further submitted that the appellant Corporation has decided to seek for acquisition only after a detailed scientific survey regarding the quality and quantum of limestone deposits in the land in question. The special adaptability of the land for quarrying purpose was taken into account for fixing the compensation. Though they have claimed rupees five lakhs per acre in the reference, the Court has awarded only Rs.1,80,000 and therefore, he submits that no interference is called for in the amount awarded.

4. Both sides have cited a number of decisions. We have considered the arguments and references carefully.

5. By the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Union Government has declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control, the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. A question was raised in a batch of writ petitions before this Court as to whether the land owners own the minerals beneath the surface as full proprietor of the land. After having been unsuccessful before the learned single Judge, a batch of writ appeals along with writ petitions came up for consideration in Writ Petition No.8542 etc. of 1990 and Writ Appeal No.1307 etc. of 1989. Justice Venkatsami, J. as he then was, speaking for the Bench, considered the question whether the minerals beneath the surface are owned by the petitioners as proprietors of the land. After referring to the elaborate arguments and all the decisions on this point, in paragraph 46 of the judgment, their Lordships have concluded as follows:

6. In T. Swaminathan v. State, AIR 1971 Mad. 483, a Division Bench of this Court held that though in theory, a ryotwari Pattadar is a kind of tenant with a right to hold his tenure, so long as he pays his assessment, in practice he is the full owner, and is