The main legal point established is that the earth used for brick manufacturing on private land does not belong to the State Government and cannot be subjected to royalty.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) - The matter has been taken up through Video conferencing on account of outbreak of pandemic COVID-19.

2. Earlier M/s Swadesh Kumar had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against State of Punjab and others seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-State from assessing, levying or recovering a sum of Rs.4323.40/- paise as royalty from the plaintiff for the earth of land owned and used by the plaintiff for making bricks at their brick kiln.

3. The plaintiffs have termed such an act to be highly illegal and against the principles of natural justice terming that notice so sent by the Tehsildar exercising the powers of Assistant Collector (Recovery) was highly vague and the brick kiln having been installed in their own personal property, no such assessment could be made and having been paid for the price of the use of the land to the owner who is a private person had already paid price of the earth which at no point of time vests in the State Government and relied on 'Wajib-ul-arz' claimed that the earth which is minor mineral does not belong to the Government and hence the suit.

4. The stand of the defendant-State in their written statement was of denial holding out that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction in terms of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 and under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff and only an appeal lies in terms of Section 54(f) of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 and sought dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendants are not entitled to recovery of Rs.4323.40 paise from the plaintiff as royalty as mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is hit under Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicate? OPD.

7. Relief.

6. Plaintiff Sawdesh Kumar examined himself as PW1 and after tendering documents closed the evidence.

7. On the other hand, defendant examined Mohinder Paul Singh as DW1 and after tendering documents closed their evidence.

8. The Court of learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class (A), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.1989 granted decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from assessing, levying or recovering the amount of Rs.4323.40 paise as royalty from the plaintiff from the brick kiln earth used by them.

9. Similarly an appeal was filed by the State the Court of Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1990 dismissed the appeal which is the subject matter of the present regular second appeal.

10. In the light of admitted legal proposition as has been laid down in 'Kirodi (since deceased) through his L.R. Vs. Ram Parkash and others' Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2019; SLP(C) No. 11527 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019, the Court is not supposed to frame substantial question of law in view of the provisions enshrined under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which has its application to the States of Punjab and Haryana.

11. Upon hearing Mr. K. K. Beniwal, learned State counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the records.

12. From the submissions of the two sides, it permeates that the plaintiff-respondent is running a brick kiln on a land which is privately owned and from which after digging earth bricks are prepared. It is not put to question by the learned State counsel for the appellant Mr. K.K. Beniwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab that the land is a private property, for which, the plaintiff had paid the requisite price and even as per the entries made in the 'Wajib-ul-arz' none of the area upon which the brick kiln is situated falls in the ownership of the