The presumption of land ownership under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is rebuttable, impacting the entitlement to claim royalties for minor minerals.

Table of Content
1. the injunction suit was dismissed based on the power to claim royalties. (Para 3 , 4)
2. the court evaluated jurisdictional objections and merits of the respondents' claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. legal principles of land ownership and the necessity of admissible evidence were established. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14)
4. final ruling set aside lower court judgments. (Para 15 , 16)

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.

Briefly stating, appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining respondents demanding/recovering any royalty against excavation of brick earth from land situated in Village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and and also restraining them from interfering in the excavation of brick earth by the appellants– plaintiffs. As per pleadings in the suit, 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 measuring 70 K-14M situated in Village Lalton 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1993 (O&M) Reserved on: 03.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2024 ...Appellants ...Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA AAG, Punjab.

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 dismissed.

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 , Tehsil and District Ludhiana, and also restraining them from interfering in the excavation of brick pleadings in the suit, plaintiff firm was carrying business of manufacturing and sale of bricks had entered into an agreement/lease dated 15.09.1981 with Jagat Singh @ Jagjit Singh i.e the owner of the suit situated in Village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and 1 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 Briefly stating, appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent defendants from demanding/recovering any royalty against excavation of brick earth District Ludhiana, and also restraining them from interfering in the excavation of brick plaintiff firm was carrying business of manufacturing and sale of bricks had entered into an agreement/lease dated suit , Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The was for the purposes of excavation of brick earth, with the consent of the owner. Grievance of the appellants respondents/ defendants were demanding royalty against excavation of brick earth, hence the suit. The case set up 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 operation of the villa

3. Upon notice, respondents 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 min State was sufficient to justify the demand. It was also stated that vide notice dated 20.09.1985, demand of Appellants-plaintiffs against royalty for 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1983.

4. ⁠The trial court, vide j dismissed the suit filed by appellants appeal was filed which met the same fate of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.1993.

5. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellants

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defendants submits that the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document