Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan, P.C.Pandit and S.S.Sandhawalia JJ.
Amar Singh Modi Lal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ No. 2004 of 1970,
Decided On : MARCH 25, 1971
The court was tasked with determining whether "brick-earth" is a minor mineral and whether the notification declaring it as such was valid. The court held that the term "mineral" is not defined in the Constitution or the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (the Act), and that the meaning of the word is ambiguous and has been the subject of debate. The court reviewed case law from various jurisdictions and concluded that there is no settled definition of "mineral" and that the courts have generally taken a broad view of the term. The court also considered expert testimony on the chemical composition and properties of brick-earth and found that it is an aggregate of minerals but does not have a definite chemical composition or specific physical properties. The court held that the notification declaring brick-earth to be a minor mineral was valid because Parliament has the power to regulate the development of minerals and because the term "mineral" is not limited to substances with a specific chemical composition or physical properties. The court also held that the State Government has the power to levy royalty on minor minerals and that the petitioners were not entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining the State Government from interfering with their mining operations because they did not have a valid mining lease or permit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are manufacturers of bricks, challenged the validity of a notification issued by the State Government declaring brick-earth to be a minor mineral and the levy of royalty on the extraction of brick-earth. The petitioners argued that brick-earth is not a mineral and that the notification was therefore ultra vires of the Act. The State Government argued that brick-earth is a mineral and that the notification was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the term "mineral" is not defined in the Constitution or the Act and that the meaning of the word is ambiguous and has been the subject of debate. The court reviewed case law from various jurisdictions and concluded that there is no settled definition of "mineral" and that the courts have generally taken a broad view of the term. The court also considered expert testimony on the chemical composition and properties of brick-earth and found that it is an aggregate of minerals but does not have a definite chemical composition or specific physical properties. The court held that the notification declaring brick-earth to be a minor mineral was valid because Parliament has the power to regulate the development of minerals and because the term "mineral" is not limited to substances with a specific chemical composition or physical properties. The court also held that the State Government has the power to levy royalty on minor minerals and that the petitioners were not entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining the State Government from interfering with their mining operations because they did not have a valid mining lease or permit.
Issues: 1. Whether "brick-earth" is a mineral? 2. Whether the notification declaring brick-earth to be a minor mineral is valid? 3. Whether the State Government has the power to levy royalty on minor minerals?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term "mineral" is not defined in the Constitution or the Act and the meaning of the word is ambiguous and has been the subject of debate. 2. The courts have generally taken a broad view of the term "mineral" and have held that it is not limited to substances with a specific chemical composition or physical properties. 3. Parliament has the power to regulate the development of minerals and the term "mineral" is not limited to substances with a specific chemical composition or physical properties. 4. The State Government has the power to levy royalty on minor minerals.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned notices for the recovery and levy of royalty. However, the court made no order as to costs.
Sandhawalia, J.
1. Whether "brick-earth" has validly been declared to be a minor mineral by virtue of the General Government Notification No. G.S.R. 436, dated the 1st of June, 1958, issue under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, is the important and slightly intricate question which primarily calls for determination in these two connected Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1840 and 2004 of 1970. Identical questions of law and fact arise in these petitions and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment shall govern both of them.
2. The broad outline of the facts is not in dispute. It would suffice to make a reference to the facts in Civil Writ No. 2004 of 1970 only to appreciate the primarily legal contentions which have been raised. The petitioner-firm of Messrs. Amar Singh Modi Lal carries on the business of the manufacture of bricks and is a licensee under the Punjab Control of Brick Supply Order 1956. It installed a brick kiln on the land which it took on lease from the Gram Panchayat of village Chhapra Tehsil and District Ambala for production of bricks at the rate of 15000 bricks per year. It is averred that the petitioner-firm is neither a mining lessee not has entered into any agreement with the Government in that regard nor does it hold any short term permit under the Punjab Minor notice vide Annexure A demanding Rs.4152.86 P. as royalty from the petitioner-firm on pain of issuing warrants of arrest and attachment in default of payment. This demand notice is impugned by way of writ petition and has been challenged as null and void and the constitutionality of the various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, (hereinafter called as the Act) and the validity of the notifications and the rules framed thereunder have been assailed on a variety of grounds which would be noticed in detail hereafter.
3. In the return filed on behalf of the respondent State of Haryana, three preliminary objections have been first taken. It is stated that the petition involves intricate questions of fact and is thus not a fit one for the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Further that the rights for the extraction of brick earth and clay in the disputed land belong to and vest in the Government and therefore the petitioner had no locus standi or a right to bring the writ petition. It is further averred that it has been found as a fact that the petitioner-firm has been charging royalty by issuing cash memos to the consumers for the sale of bricks and has kept the amount of royalty with itself which it was not authorised to do as royalty belongs to the Government.
4. On merits the position taken up in reply is that the petitioner has unauthorisedly been extracting brick earth from the disputed land since 2nd May, 1964, where the minor mineral rights vest in the Government, without obtaining any short-term permit or lease as required by the Rules and this act is unlawful and illegal under Rule 54 of the Rules. It is further averred that the demand notice for royalty due from the petitioner-firm was issued to him impressing upon him that in case of non-payment by a specific date, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Rules and despite this demand notice the petitioner-firm did not attend the office of respondent No. 2 when royalty for the bricks earth was to be assessed. The contents of para 4 impugning the validity of the demand notice have been denied, and it has been expressly pleaded that brick earth has been validly declared a minor mineral by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 3(e) and as regards the vesting of such minor minerals, it is stated that the relevant entries in the Wajib-ul-arz (copy attached as Annexure R. II) clearly show that all the mining rights in the said village vest and belong to the Government. It has been repeatedly reiterated that al
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
