The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership of brick earth, as a minor mineral, vests in the landowners and not the State Government, as per the interpretation of the Mines and Minerals Regulation Act and the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RSA Nos, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381, 2382 and 2383 of 1984 in which common substantial questions of law arise for consideration. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from Regular Second Appeal No. 2376 of 1984.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering any amount as royalty from the plaintiff for the earth of land owned by the private owners and used by the plaintiff-firm for making bricks at its brick kiln situated in village Jalalabad, Tehsil Zira.

3. The plaintiff, a registered firm, filed a suit on the plea that it had a brick kiln. For making bricks, the plaintiff digs earth from the land owned by the private owners which is taken on lease and price whereof is paid to the landowners. No part of the land vests in the State Government and according to the entries in the Sharait Wajib-ul-arz, earth does not belong to the Government and in terms of Section 42(2) of the Land Revenue Act the same vests in the landowners. It was claimed that there was no provision in the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Mines and Minerals Regulation Act) or in the Punjab Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to be as Mineral Concession Rules) giving powers to the State Government to levy royalty on the use of brick earth. Therefore, it was claimed that the Government was not entitled to charge any royalty on the brick earth used by the plaintiff-firm for preparing the bricks at the aforesaid brick kiln. It was further claimed that the defendants were assessing royalty and sending notices to the plaintiff-appellant herein for payment. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the said action/claim of the defendants was illegal and void.

4. The suit was contested by raising preliminary objections that before filing the suit, the plaintiff was required to file an appeal in accordance with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules and as such the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit was also claimed to be not maintainable for want of description of Khasra Nos. of the land in question.

5. It was further pleaded that plaintiff-firm did not hold any certificate of approval in Form-B for the extraction of Minor Mineral. It was also claimed that the rights of all the minerals including brick earth vest in the State as per entries in the Wajib-ul-arz of the village and that the amount in question was being recovered as arrears of land revenue.

6. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff-firm was running a brick kiln in the village Jalalabad. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was engaged in the illegal extraction of brick earth from the land of the village for the last about 5 years on the basis of lease deed. It was further claimed that according to the Wajib-ul-arz of the village, the every mineral including brick earth vests in the State Government as per Section 42(2) of the Land Revenue Act and that even otherwise the plaintiff-firm was bound to pay royalty to the State Government. It was also the case of the defendant- respondents that according to Section 15 of the Mines and Mineral Regulations Act, the State Government is empowered to frame rules for making provisions to charge royalty. It was claimed that the action of the Government for charging royalty was in accordance with law. It was also pleaded that the application moved by the plaintiff challenging the demand of royalty was rejected against which the plaintiff-firm did not approach the higher authorities.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ?