Rule 27 (1) (d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is valid and within the rule-making power conferred by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, upon the Central Government.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the holder of a mining concession for a writ of certiorari and such other writ or order as this Court may consider appropriate. It is mainly directed against an order dated 4 January 1962 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katni (respondent 2), directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,570/- as compensation for the surface of 11. 35 acres of land before commencing the mining operations.

( 2 ) BY a provisional agreement dated 26 December 1960, the petitioner was allowed to extract and remove fire-clay from 58. 05 acres of land of village Jharela, tahsil Murwara, as therein specified. One of the terms of that agreement is that the petitioner shall observe and conform to the requirements of the Mineral concession Rules, 1949. On 17 April 1961, the petitioner applied for permission to commence the mining operations over 11. 35 acres of the land. The respondent 2, by his order dated 29 May 1961, overruled the petitioner's contention that, under section 247 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, it was not liable to pay any compensation for the land which was grass land owned by the State government. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 4 January 1962, the respondent 2 determined the compensation to be Rs. 2,570/- on the basis of the market-value of the land and directed the petitioner to pay the amount. Being aggrieved, and having paid the amount under protest, the petitioner has moved this Court.

( 3 ) BEFORE us, the direction to pay Rs. 2,570/-as compensation has been challenged as an illegal exaction not sanctioned bv the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), and Section 247 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the code ). In our opinion, this contention is, as we would show in the sequel, well-founded and must be accepted.

( 4 ) UNDER the general law, it is well-established, that a grantor cannot derogate from his own grant. It follows from this principle that one, who grants a thing, i's presumed to grant everything which is necessary for the enjoyment of the thing granted. Applying this principle to a mineral concession, there is an implied grant of all rights accessory for the full enjoyment of the right to take away minerals. So, in Haripada Bandopadya v. Equitable Coal Co. , Ltd. , AIR 1923 Cal 335, a division Bench of the Calcutta High Court stated: "so far as the second point is concerned, it is settled law that a right of using the surface to which the mine owner may be entitled by implication is confined to such things as are reasonably and strictly necessary for the convenient working of the mines". In view of this legal position, the State Government cannot require the petitioner to pay any compensation for using the surface area of the land strictly for the purposes of the mine unless there be any provision to the contrary either in the statute governing the matter or in the agreement itself. As we would show in a moment, the matter is specifically covered by the agreement. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 4 of the Act is as under: "no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder" the relevant Rule 27 (1) (d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, framed under section 13 of the Act reads: ' "27 (1 ). Every mining lease shall be subject to the following conditions and such conditions shall be incorporated in every mining lease:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) the lessee shall also pay, for the surface area used by him for the purposes of mining operations, surface rent and water rate at such rate, not exceeding the land revenue, water rate and cesses assessable on the land, as may be specified by the State Government in the lease;". This corresponds to Rule 41 (1) (iv) of the Mineral Concession Rul