Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Parminder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State – Respondent
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/ defenda
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.
The State Government cannot levy royalty on brick earth unless ownership is established, despite its classification as a minor mineral under the relevant laws.
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.
The excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract the levy of royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, especially when the excavate....
The purpose of excavation determines liability for royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966, and excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract royalty a....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes / development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under p....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract levy of royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth is used for level....
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
