The presumption of ownership under Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act favors landowners unless proven otherwise, and mere admission of documents does not suffice for proof.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 27.01.1983 and 01.12.1988 passed by the Courts below whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs stood dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining respondents-defendants from demanding/recovering any royalty against excavation of brick earth from land situated in Village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, and also restraining them from interfering in the excavation of brick earth by the appellants-plaintiffs. As per pleadings in the suit, plaintiff No.1-firm was carrying business of manufacturing and sale of bricks and for the said purpose it had entered into an agreement/lease dated 15.09.1981 with Jagat Singh @ Jagjit Singh i.e the owner of the suit land measuring 70 K-14M situated in Village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The lease was for the purposes of excavation of brick earth, with the consent of the owner. Grievance of the appellants-plaintiffs was that the respondents/ defendants were demanding royalty against excavation of brick earth, hence the suit. The case set up in the plaint was that royalty could be claimed by an owner; whereas respondents were not the owner of brick earth in the given case, as it was never reserved in the name of State as per Sharait Wazib-ul-Arz, prepared during settlement operation of the village.

3. Upon notice, respondents-defendants filed written statement. Besides, raising objections qua the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit, on merits it was stated that once brick earth was declared as minor mineral, the reservation of mines/quarries in favour of State was sufficient to justify the demand. It was also stated that vide notice dated 20.09.1985, demand of Rs. 17044/- was made from the Appellants-plaintiffs against royalty for 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1983.

4. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.1988 dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereof first appeal was filed which met the same fate been dismissed by the court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.1993.

5. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below being based upon proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on record in the shape of Sharait Wazib-ul-Arz (Ex.D6) and also the statutory provisions in the form of Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the interpretations applicable thereto, the same does not warrants any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and gone through the paper book, however, find substance in the present appeal.

8. There is no doubt that the "brick earth" comes under the ambit of minor mineral as notified/ declared by the Central Government vide notification dated 01.06.1958, issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 (c) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, however, the question to be answered in the appeal in hand is-

"As to whether the respondent State is entitled to claim royalty from the appellants-plaintiffs against excavation of brick earth from the land situated in Village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, which was taken on lease by them from its original owner - Jagjit Singh."

9. Response to the aforesaid query revolves around Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. For reference, Section 42 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-

"Section 42: Presumption as to ownership of forests, quarries and waste lands: -(1) when in any record-of-rights completed before the eighteenth day of November, 1871, it is not expressly provided that any forest, quarry, unclaimed