You are on page 1of 40

Page 1

Reportable
lN THE SUPREME COURT OF lNDlA
ClVlL APPELLATE ]URlSDlCTlON
ClVlL APPEAL NOS.4540-4548 OF 2000
Threesiamma ]acob & Ors. .
Appellants
Versus
Geologist, Dptt. of Mining &
Geology & Ors. .Respondents
WlTH
ClVlL APPEAL NO. 4549 OF 2000
] U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, ].
1. These appeas are paced before us pursuant to the
Order dated 8
th
December, 2004 of a Dvson Bench of ths
Court whch opned that the ponts nvoved n these and
certan other appeas "need to be decded by a three
|udge Bench."
2. These appeas arse out of a common |udgment
rendered n a number of wrt pettons by a fu Bench of
Page 2
the Keraa Hgh Court dated 2
nd
August, 1999 by whch a
the wrt pettons were dsmssed.
3. The sad fu Bench of the Keraa Hgh Court was
caed upon to examne the queston (on a reference by
another Dvson Bench) - whether the owners of jenmom
ands n the Maabar area
1
are the propretors of the so
and the mneras underneath the so - and answered the
sad queston n the negatve:
"Hence, we are of the vew that so far as the
ands n queston are concerned, the mneras
beong to the Government." (para 31)
4. To ustrate the background n whch such queston
arses, we may quote the facts of one of the wrt pettons
consdered by the fu Bench as narrated by the fu Bench.
"2. Accordng to the pettoner n ths case, her
husband obtaned |enmon assgnment of 2 Acres
of grante rocks stuated n Dhon Akathethara
Amsom and Vage, paakkad Tauk, Maabar.
The pettoners husband obtaned the property
from the prevous |enmy, C.P. Thampurankutty
Menon. Thereafter, the pettoners husband
executed a regstered gft deed. Accordng to
the pettoner, the property was en|oyed by the
earer |enmy and thereafter by the pettoner
wthout any nterference from the Government.
Due to gnorance of the ega poston, the
pettoner entered nto a ease agreement wth
the Department of Mnng and Geoogy to conduct
quarryng operatons n her property. Later on
1
Parts of Keraa popuary known as Maabar area whch earer formed part of
the erstwhe Madras provnce n the Brtsh Inda
Page 3
she reased that t was not necessary to pay any
royaty to the Government wth regard to the
property beongng to her. In the above
crcumstances, she made a fresh appcaton to
the Department for cence. But the respondents
faed to provde necessary permts to the
pettoner. When she receved a notce from the
Keraa Mneras Squad drectng her to stop the
quarryng actvtes, she gave a repy to
reconsder her contenton. Thereafter, by Ext.
P6, she was nformed by the Department to
renew the ease."
5. It can be seen from the above that the appeants
asserted that they are hoders of jenmom rghts n the
ands n queston and the State has no ega authorty to
demand payment of royates on the mneras excavated
by the hoder of jenmom rght.
6. Such a cam of the appeants s based on the beef
and asserton of the appeants (1) that the hoder of the
jenmom rghts s not ony the propretor of the so for
whch he has jenmom rghts, but aso the owner of the
mnera weath yng beneath the so. (2) that the
understandng of the appeants that a cam of royaty can
be made ony by the owner of the mnera aganst a person
who s excavatng the mnera wth the consent of the
owner.
Page 4
7. We must straghtway record that the second of the
above-mentoned propostons regardng the character and
ega nature of royaty, (though was consdered by ths
Court on more than one occason) stands referred to a
arger Bench by an Order of reference dated 30
th
March,
2011 of a three-|udge Bench n Mineral Area Development
Authority & Ors. Vs. 5teel Authority of lndia & Ors.(2011)
4 SCC 450, therefore, we are not requred to examne and
decde the queston. We are ony requred to examne the
amptude of the rghts of the jenmom and hoders caed
jenmis n the Maabar area of the Keraa State and decde
whether a jenmi s entted to the rghts of subso/the
mneras yng beneath the surface of the and.
Page 5
8. The appeants case s that a jenmi
2
hods jenmom
3
ands as absoute owner and has propretary rghts over
both the so and subso. The ryotwari settement made
by the Brtsh Government n the Maabar area of the
erstwhe Madras Provnce ony obgated the jenmis to pay
revenue to the State but dd not n any way affect ther
propretary rghts n the ands. Nor dd the ryotwari
settement have the effect of transferrng and vestng the
ownershp ether of the and or the subso (mneras) to
the State. In support of ths submsson, the appeants
heavy reed on a |udgment of ths Court n 8almadies
Plantations Ltd. and Anr. v. The 5tate of Tamil Nadu AIR
1972 SC 2240 and aso a standng order of the Board of
Revenue of the erstwhe Madras Provnce dated 19
th
2
The expresson jenmi etymoogcay means the hoder of jenmom rghts n a
pece of and. Though the expresson s defned n some of the enactments
pertanng to the present State of Keraa, such defntons are enactment specfc
but not comprehensve to descrbe the fu ega contours of the jenmom rghts.
3
In Maabar the excusve rght to, and heredtary possesson of, the so s
denoted by the term |enmam whch means brthrght and the hoder thereof s
known as |enm, |enmakaran or mutaaan. Unt the conquest of Maabar by the
Mahomedan prnces of Mysore, the |enms appear to have hed ther ands free
from any abty to make any payment, ether n money or n produce, to
government and therefore unt that perod, such an absoute property was
vested n them as was not found n any other part of the Presdency. The ate Sr
Chares Turner after notcng the varous forms of transactons prevaent n
Maabar remarked that they ponted to an ownershp of the so as compete as
was en|oyed by a freehoder n Engand.
These |enms have been from tme mmemora exercsng the rght of
seng, mortgagng, or otherwse deang wth the property. They had fu
absoute property n the so. (Ref. "Land Tenures in the Madras
Presidency", S. Sundararaja lyengar, Second Edition, Page 49-50).
Page 6
March 1888 and argued that earer fu Bench decson of
the Keraa Hgh Court n 5. Sabhayogam v. 5tate of lerala,
AIR 1963 Keraa 101 requred a reconsderaton.
9. On the other hand, the State of Keraa took the stand
that subsequent to the extension of the ryotwari
settement to the Maabar area of the erstwhe Madras
Provnce, the jenmis ceased to be the absoute owners and
propretors of the ands hed by them. The ryotwari
settement had the effect of transferrng the ownershp of
subso (mneras) to the Government. The ryotwari
pattadars rghts are ony confned to the surface.
10. The Hgh Court re|ected the contentons of the
pettoners. The Hgh Court attempted to dstngush the
decson of ths Court n 8almadies Plantations (supra):
"Even though there s some force n the
contenton of the pettoners, the above
observatons of the Supreme Court are not
nconformty wth the observatons made by
the Fu Bench (whch foowed the decson of
the Supreme Court n lunhikomans case),
that does not mean that the vew taken by the
Fu Bench s not correct, because t can be
seen from paragraph 14 of the above
|udgment tsef that the Supreme Court has
observed that n the Keraa case documents
were produced and on the bass of the
documents, the Court took the vew that the
Page 7
nature of rghts has changed after the
Ryotwar settements."
11. We must confess that we have some dffcuty to
understand the exact purport of the above extract. Be
that as t may. The Hgh Court recorded two concusons
(1) that the earer fu Bench decson of the Keraa Hgh
Court n the case of 5. Sabhayogam case (supra) dd not
requre any reconsderaton as contended by the
pettoners; and (2) the ands n queston cannot be
cassfed any more as jenmom ands but are ands hed on
a ryotwari patta.
"The State has produced certan
documents to show that the ands are Ryotwar
ands. Ext.R1(a) produced w show that there
are ony two categores of ands, Ryotwar and
Inam. Thus, on a consderaton of the
documents produced by the State and on a
consderaton of the decsons cted, we are
satsfed that the decson reported n S.
Sabhayogam v. State of Keraa - AIR 1963
Keraa 101 - does not requre reconsderaton
n the ght of the decson of the Supreme
Court n Bamades Pantatons v. State of
Tam Nadu - AIR 1972 SC 2240. Hence, we
hod that the ands n queston are not |enmom
ands and they are Ryotwar patta ands."
12. In vew of such a concuson the Hgh Court re|ected
the submsson that the pettoners are entted to the
rghts over the subso reyng upon certan passages from
Page 8
5ecretary of 5tate v. 5ri 5rinivasachariar, AIR 1921 PC 1, T.
5waminathan (Dead) and Another v. 5tate Of Madras and
others, AIR 1971 Mad 483, 5ashi 8hushan Misra v. jyoti
Prasad 5ingh Deo, AIR 1916 PC 191, laliki 5ubbarami
Reddy v. Union of lndia ILR 1969 AP 736 and
Cangarathinam v. 5tate of Tamil Nadu, 1990 TNL| 374;
and certan rectas (n Maayaam) made n the patta
ssued to one of the pettoners before t whch s
transated by the Hgh Court as foows:
"The assessment shown n the pattayam s the
share due to the Government for the
agrcutura produce on the surface of the
property. If mneras are found n the property
and the mneras are worked by the pattadar
wth regard to those propertes a separate tax
s to be pad n addton to the tax shown n the
pattayam."
13. The Hgh Court though referred to the standng order
of the Madras Revenue Board dated 19
th
March 1888, t dd
not record any concusve fndng on the effect of the sad
order.
14. Before us the same submssons whch were made
before the Hgh Court were repeated by both the partes,
Page 9
therefore, we are not eaboratng the submssons made
before us.
15. Before we examne the correctness of the |udgment
under appea, we deem t necessary to take note of the
ega poston regardng the rghts over mneras as they
obtan n Engand. Hasburys Laws of Engand
4
state the
ega poston:
J9. Meaning of 'land' and cognate terms.
Prima facie land or lands includes everything on
or under the surface, although this meaning has in
some cases been held to have been restricted by
the context. 5oil is apt to denote the surface and
everything above and below it, but similarly its
meaning may be restricted by the context so as to
exclude the mines. 5ubsoil includes everything
from the surface to the centre of the earth...
20..Mines, quarries and minerals in their original
position are part and parcel of the land.
Consequently the owner of surface land is entitled
prima facie to everything beneath or within it, down
to the centre of the earth. This principle applies
even where title to the surface has been acquired by
prescription, but it is subject to exceptions. Thus,
at common law, mines of gold and silvery belong to
the Crown, and by statute unworked coal which was,
at the restructuring date, vested in the 8ritish Coal
Corporation is vested in the Coal Authority. Any
minerals removed from land under a compulsory
rights order or opencast working of coal become the
property of the person entitled to the rights
conferred by the order. The property in petroleum
existing in its natural condition in strata is vested by
statute in the Crown."
4
|Vo.31, 4
th
Ed. pp.28-29|
Page 10
16. We are requred to examne whether the aw of ths
country and more partcuary wth reference to Maabar
area regardng the rghts over the mnes and mneras s
the same as t obtans n Engand or dfferent.
17. By the tme South Inda came under contro of the
Brtsh Government, there were n vogue nnumerabe
varetes of and tenures n varous parts of South Inda
whch eventuay came to be caed the Madras Presdency.
The hstory of these tenures and how they were deat
under the varous aws made ether by the East Inda
Company government or the Brtsh government
(herenafter n ths |udgment both the above are referred
to as Brtsh for the sake of convenence) was examned
n deta n two semna works tted - the Land Systems of
Brtsh Inda by Bedan Henry Powe frst pubshed n 1892
and Land Tenures n the Madras Presdency by S.
Sundarara|a Iyengar, pubshed n 1916.
18. Both the above-mentoned works examned the
nature and ega contours of varous knds of and tenures
n vogue. Whe Powes book deat wth the pan Indan
Page 11
stuaton, Iyengars book s confned to Madras presdency
aone. Both the books took note of the exstence of a and
tenure known as jenmom n the present State of Keraa.
19. The hstory of the and tenures n South Inda and
saent features of jenmon rghts or the rghts of a jenmi
fe for the consderaton of ths Court on more than one
occason. Two Consttuton Benches of ths Court had
occason to examne the above questons n larimbil
lunhikoman v. 5tate of lerala |AIR 1962 SC 723|, and
8almadies Plantations Ltd. and Anr. v. The 5tate of Tamil
Nadu |AIR 1972 SC 2240|, wheren ther Lordshps
examned n some deta the nature of and tenures as
they exsted n the erstwhe Madras provnce generay
and the Maabar area specfcay.
20. In the case of lunhikoman (supra), ths Court hed
that there were two varetes of tenures n exstence n the
erstwhe provnce of Madras. Those tenures were known
as landlord tenures and ryotwari tenures. It was hed
by ths Court that the andord tenures were governed by
the varous enactments n force from tme to tme whereas
Page 12
the ryotwari tenures were governed by the standng orders
of the Board of Revenue - n other words the orders ssued
by the Executve Government of the Madras provnce
5
.
21. Eventuay, the landlord tenures n the erstwhe
provnce of Madras came to be governed by the
enactment known as Madras Estates Land Act, No. 1 of
1908 whch admttedy dd not appy to Maabar area.
6
22. The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, whch
extensvey deat wth the rghts and obgatons of the
andords/andhoders ownng an estate (popuary known
as Zamindars) expressy recognses the rght of the
andhoder to reserve mnng rghts whe admttng a ryot
to the possesson of the ryoti and.
7
By necessary
mpcaton t foows that the andhoder had the ega
rght and tte to the mneras/subso over the ands
5
Kunhikoman case Para 12. ...The usual Ieature oI land-tenure in Madras was the ryotwari Iorm
but in some districts, a landlord class had grown up both in the northern and southern parts oI the
Presidency oI Madras as it was beIore the Constitution. The permanent settlement was introduced in
a part oI the Madras Presidency in 1802. There were also various tenures arising out oI revenue Iree
grants all over the Province (see Chap. IV, Vol. III oI Land Systems oI British India by Baden Powell)
and sometimes in some districts both kinds oI tenures, namely, landlord tenures and the ryotwari
tenures were prevalent. There were various Acts, in Iorce in the Presidency oI Madras with respect to
landlord tenures while ryotwari tenures were governed by the Standing Orders oI the Board oI
Revenue.
6
Para 12 oI Kunhikoman (supra) - ...Eventually, in 1908, the Madras legislature passed the Madras
Estates Land Act, No. 1 oI 1908 ....... This Act applied to the entire Presidency oI Madras
except the Presidency town oI Madras, the district oI Malabar and ...
7
Section 7 Reservation of mining rights - Nothing in this Act shall aIIect any right oI a
landholder to make a reservation oI mining rights on admitting any person to possession oI ryoti land.
Page 13
comprsng hs estate and he s egay entted ether to
grant the mnng rghts to the ryot or wthhod the same.
Ths mpcaton whch we drew gets fortfed by Secton 3
of Estates Aboton Act whch expressy decares that wth
effect from the notfed date - a defned expresson under
Secton 1(10), the estate wth a the assets ncudng
mnes and mneras sha stand transferred to and vest n
the State. If the mneras/subso dd not beong to the
estate hoder, there was no need to make an express
decaraton such as the one made n Secton 3(b).
8
23. Smary, t can aso be notced that under varous
enactments aboshng the varous ands tenures n South
Inda such as inams etc., express provsons were made
that the mnes and mneras exstng n such aboshed
tenures sha stand transferred to the Government and
vest n the Government. See, for exampe, Secton 2-A
9
of
The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) lnams (Aboton and
8
Section 3(b) - the entire estate including minor imams (Post-settlement or pre-settlement) included
in the assets oI the zamindari estate at the permanent settlement oI that estate; all communal lands
and porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; Lanka lands; Iorests; mines and
minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; Iisheries; and Ierries, shall stand
transferred to the Government and vest in them, Iree oI all encumbrances; and the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation Cess Act,
1865 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;
9
2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of all communal lands, porambokes etc. in
inam lands - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communal lands and porambokes,
grazing lands, waste lands, Iorest lands, mines and querries, tanks, tank-beds and irrigation works,
streams and rivers, Iisheries and Ierries in the inam lands shall stand transIerred to the Government
and vest in them Iree oI all encumbrances.
Page 14
Converson nto Ryotwar) Act, 1956. We must remember
that Andhra area of the present State of Andhra Pradesh
was part of the od Madras Provnce.
24. 5tate of Andhra Pradesh v. Duvvuru 8alarami Reddy
& Ors.
J0
was a case where the respondents before ths
Court secured a ease of a pece of and n an inam vage
(shrotrem) and sought to carry on mca mnng operaton
and apped for permsson from the State of Andhra
Pradesh under the Mnera Concesson Rues, 1949 made
under the Mnes & Mneras Reguaton & Deveopment
Act, 1948. The queston was whether the essor
(shrotremdar) had rghts over the subso/mneras and
whether he coud pass rghts theren by a ease.
11
A
Consttuton Bench of ths Court examned the rghts of the
lnamdar under the ega regme that exsted n the Madras
provnce and came to the concuson on the bass of a
decson of the Prvy Counc
12
that every lnamdar
10
AIR 1963 SC 264

11
The main question thereIore that Ialls Ior decision in these appeals is whether shrotriemdars can be
said to have rights in the minerals. (para 7)
12
This matter has been the subject oI consideration by the Madras High Court on a number oI
occasions and eventually the controversy was set at rest by the decision oI the Judicial Committee in
Secy. OI State Ior India v. Srinivasachariar, 48 Ind App 56 : (AIR 1921 PC 1). That case came on
appeal to the Judicial Committee Irom the decision oI the Madras High Court in Secy. OI State Ior
India v. Srinivasachariar, ILR 40 Mad 268 : (AIR 1918 Mad 956). The controversy beIore the
Madras High Court was with respect to a shrotriem inam which was granted by the Nawab oI
Carnatic in 1750 and had been enIranchised by the British Government in 1862. (para 7)
Page 15
necessary dd not own the subso rghts. Such rght
depended upon the terms of the orgna grant - lnam. It,
therefore, foows that n a gven case f the orgna grant
of lnam specfcay conveyed the subso rghts (by the
grantor), the lnamdar woud become the owner of the
mnera weath aso.
25. The necessary nference s that the Brtsh recognsed
that the State had no nherent rght n aw to be the owner
of a mnera weath n ths country. They recognsed that
such rghts coud nhere n prvate partes, at east
Zamindars and lnamdars or ryots camng under them n a
gven case.
26. Comng to the ryotwari tenures, ths Court hed that
they were governed by the standng orders ssued from
tme to tme by the Revenue Board. Under the ryotwari
system and was gven on ease by the government to the
The Judicial Committee held that the grant oI a village in inam might be no more than
an assignment oI revenue, and even where there was included a grant oI land, what interest in the
land passed must depend on the language oI the instrument and the circumstances oI each case. The
Judicial Committee also considered the standing orders oI the Board oI Revenue oI 1890 and 1907
which have been reIerred to by the appeal court in the judgment under appeal. This decision thus
establishes that the mere Iact that a person is the holder oI an inam grant would not by itselI by
enough to establish that the inam grant included the grant oI sub-soil rights in addition to the surIace
rights and that the grant oI sub-soil would depend upon the language used in the grant. II there are
no words in the grant Irom which the grant oI sub-soil rights can be properly inIerred the inam grant
would only convey the surIace rights to the grantee, and the inam grant could not by itselI be equated
to a complete transIer Ior value oI all that was in the grantor. (para 8)
Page 16
ryot under a patta. Notcng the saent features of the
ryotwari system as expaned n varous authortatve
works, ths Court opned that "though a ryotwari pattadar
is virtually like a proprietor and has many of the
advantages of such a proprietor", such pattadar was never
consdered a propretor of and but ony a tenant.
13
27. We must remember that n the case of lunhikoman
(supra), the pettoners dd not cam any ad|udcaton of
ther rghts as hoders of jenmom ands. On the other
hand, the appeants asserted that they were hoders of
ryotwari pattas ssued accordng to ryotwari settement n
13
Para 13 oI Kunhikoman (supra) ..The other class oI land-tenures consisted oI ryotwari
pattadars which were governed by the Board`s Standing Orders, there being no Act oI the legislature
with respect to them. The holders oI ryotwari pattas used to hold lands on lease Irom Government.
The basic idea oI ryotwari settlement is that every bit oI land is assessed to a certain revenue and
assigned a survey number Ior a period oI years, which is usually thirty and each occupant oI such land
holds it subject to his paying the land-revenue Iixed on that land. But it is open to the occupant to
relinquish his land or to take new land which has been relinquished by some other occupant or
become otherwise available on payment oI assessment (see Land Systems oI british India by Baden-
Powell, Vol. III, Chap. IV S. II, p. 128). Though, theoretically, according to some authorities the
occupant oI ryotwari land held it under an annual lease (see Macleane, Vol. I Revenue Settlement, p.
104), it appears that in Iact the Collector had no power to terminate the tenant`s holding Ior any cause
whatever except Iailure to pay the revenue or the ryot`s own relinquishment or abandonment. The
ryot is generally called a tenant, oI Government but he is not a tenant Irom year to year and cannot be
ousted as long as he pays the land revenue assessed. He has also the right to sell or mortgage or giIt
the land or lease it and the transIeree becomes liable in his place Ior the revenue. Further, the lessee
oI a ryotwari pattadar has no rights except those conIerred under the lease and is generally a sub-
tenant at will liable to ejectment at the end oI each year. In the Manual oI Administration, as quoted
by Baden Powell, in Vol. III oI Land Systems oI British India at p. 129, the ryotwari tenure is
summarized as that
'oI a tenant oI the State enjoying a tenant-right which can be inherited, sold, or burdened Ior
debt in precisely the same manner as a proprietary right, subject always to payment oI the revenue due
to the State.
Though thereIore the ryotwari pattadar is virtually like a proprietor and has many oI the
advantages oI such a proprietor, he could still relinquish or abandon his land in Iavour oI the
Government. It is because oI this position that the ryotwari pattadar was never considered a
proprietor oI the land under his patta, though he had many oI the advantages oI a proprietor.
Page 17
the erstwhe State of Madras under the revenue Board
Standng Order. Ths Court further recorded:-
....it is not in dispute that the ryotwari system was
introduced in the 5outh Canara District in the earlier
years of this century"
28. The queston before ths Court was whether the
hoder of such a ryotwari patta coud be caed the hoder
of an estate wthn the meanng of the Keraa Agraran
Reatons Act and therefore, precuded by Artce 39A of
the Consttuton to cam the beneft of the fundamenta
rghts under Artces 19(1)(d) and 31 of the Consttuton.
29. The ega nature of the rghts of a jenmi was
consdered n greater deta n the case of 8almadies
Plantations (supra). At para 6 of the sad |udgment, the
Consttuton Bench recorded:-
6. ...Originally the janmis in Malabar were absolute
proprietors of the land and did not pay land revenue. After
Malabar was annexed by the 8ritish in the beginning of the
J9
th
century, the janmis conceded the liability to pay land
revenue...."
30. Ths Court took note of a decson of the Madras Hgh
Court n 5ecretary of 5tate v. Ashtamurthi |(1890) ILR 13
Mad 89|
14
where the Madras Hgh Court recorded:-
14
In the said case, the Madras High Court had to deal with the rights oI a jenmi whose lands were
leased out to a third party by the Collector (State) without reIerence to the jenmi and when the tenant
deIaulted in the payment oI revenue, property was attached and sold under the provisions oI the
Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The jenmi successIully challenged the legality oI such a sale.
Page 18
".. At the annexaton of Maabar n 1799, the
Government dscamed any desre to act as the
propretor of the so, and drected that rent
shoud be coected from the mmedate
cutvators. Trmbak Ranu v. Nana Bhavan
(1875) 12 Bom HCR 144 and Secretary of State v.
Vra Rayan (1886) ILR 9 Mad 175 thus mtng ts
cam to revenue. Further n ther despatch of
17
th
December 1813 reatng to the settement of
Maabar the Drectors observed that n Maabar
they had no property n the and to confer, wth
the excepton of some forfeted estates. Ths may
be regarded as an absoute dscamer by the
Government of the day of any propretary rght n
the |anms estate. .. ."
31. Ths Court n 8almadies Plantations case (supra)
quoted wth approva the above extracted passage from
Ashtamurthis (supra) |udgment.
32. It was specfcay argued on behaf of 8almadies
Plantations that by vrtue of a resettement whch took
pace n 1926, the jenmom rghts were converted nto
ryotwari tenure. Ths Court on examnaton of the
reevant standng orders reached the concuson that the
effect of the Resettement of 1926 was to retan the
jenmom estates and not to abosh the same and convert
nto ryotwari estates.
15

15
Para 11 of Balmadies (supra) .... It would appear Irom the above that the eIIect oI the
resettlement oI 1926 was to retain the janmam estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them
into ryotwari estates. There was merely a change oI nomenclature. Government janman lands were
called the new holdings, while private janmam lands were called the old holdings. In respect oI
janmabhogam (janmi`s share) relating to Government janman lands, the order Iurther directed that
the amount to be paid to the Government should include both the taram assessment and
janmabhogam. It is diIIicult, in our opinion, to inIer Irom the above that janmam rights in the lands
Page 19
33. But nether of the cases deat wth the queston
whether a jenmi s entted ether before or after the
abovementoned settement of 1926 to the subso rghts
or mneras n the and hed by hm. Therefore, we are
requred to decde the same.
34. In 8almadies Plantations case (supra) ths Court took
note of two facts - (1) that orgnay jenmis of Maabar
area were absoute propretors of the and; and (2) when
Maabar area was annexed, the Brtsh expressy
dscamed the propretorshp of the so. These
concusons were recorded on the bass of Ashtamurthi
case (supra).
35. Ashtamurthi case (supra) tsef rees upon an earer
decson of the Madras Hgh Court n 5ecretary of 5tate v.
Vira Rayan j(J886) lLR 9 Mad J75]
J6
wheren the Hgh
Court found that the and n dspute appertans to the
Dstrct of Maabar and recorded as foows:-
in question were extinguished and converted into ryotwari estates. The use oI the word
Janmabhogam on the contrary indicates that the rights oI janmis were kept intact.
16
It was an appeal decided by a Division Bench oI the Madras High Court (Sir Charles A. Turner,
Kt., ChieI Justice, and Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar). The appeal arose out oI a suit Iiled by the State
seeking declaration that certain lands (Iorest lands) which were the subject matter oI dispute in the
said suit were the property oI the government and a consequential injunction restraining the
deIendants Irom in any way interIering with the rights oI the Government. The deIendants asserted
their proprietary rights over the lands in dispute.
Page 20
....and we agree with the judge that there
is no presumption in that district and in the tracts
administered as part of it, that forest lands are
the property of the Crown. At the
commencement of the century it was the policy
of the Covernment to allow all lands to become
private estates where that was possible.
Despatch of Lord Wellesley quoted in 8askarappa
v. The Collector of North Canara jl.L.R., 3 8om.,
550]. The despatch and order of the Covernor-
Cneral in Council on the annexation of Malabar,
dated the 3J
st
December J799 and the J8
th
june
J80J, have not been adduced, but their purport
appears from the despatch of the J9
th
july J804,
quoted in Vyakunta 8apuji v. Covernment of
8ombay jJ2 8om. H.C.R. J44]. lt was intimated
that it never could be desirable that the
Covernment itself should act as the proprietor of
the lands and should collect the rents from the
immediate cultivators of the soil. When in J808
the 8oard of Revenue suggested that an
augmentation of revenue might be derived from
waste lands reserved, they were informed that
the Covernment did not look to any advantage of
that nature beyond the benefit of increasing the
amount of the public taxes in proportion to the
existing taxes of the country (Fifth Report,
Appendix 30, page 902. Revenue and judicial
5election, Volume l, p. 842). lt will be seen that
at that time the Covernment so far from
abrogating the Hindu law intended to assert no
proprietary right to the waste, but limited itself to
its claim to revenue. At the time Malabar came
under 8ritish rule, all the forests were claimed as
private property (l.R.R., 3 8om. 586). ln their
despatch of J7
th
December J8J3, relating to the
settlement of Malabar, the Directors observed
that in Malabar they had no property in the land
to confer, with the exception of some forfeited
estates Revenue 5election, Volume l, p. 5JJ).
Although a different policy was subsequently
pursued in other districts, and, especially in more
modern times, rules have been framed for the
sale of waste lands, there is nothing to show that
any such change was notified in Malabar up to a
period much later than that at which there is
considerable evidence to show that the
respondents Nos. J and 2 were in possession of
and recognised as proprietors of the lands they
claim by Covernment officials.."
Page 21
36. Ths Court n 8almadies Plantations case (supra) after
takng note of the above ega poston wth reference to
the jenmom ands of Maabar re|ected the contenton that
as a resut of the resettement of 1926, jenmom rghts
stood converted nto ryotwari estate.
17
37. We have aready taken note of the ega poston wth
respect to the mneras obtanng subso n the ands hed
under andord tenures (zamindari or inam estates), and
aso the aw of Engand, we fnd t dffcut to beeve wth
respect to ryotwari tenures n the Brtsh Inda and
partcuary the Madras provnce, the government
assumed the ownershp of the subso. On the contra,
there s postve evdence n the Board Standng Order No.
10 dated 19.03.1888
18
(herenafter referred to as BSO
17
Para 11. .. It would appear Irom the above that the eIIect oI the resettlement oI 1926 was to retain
the janmam estates and not to abolish the same or to convert them into ryotwari estates. There was
merely a change oI nomenclature. Government janmam lands were called the new holdings, while
private janmam lands were called the old holdings. In respect oI janmabhogam (janmi`s share)
relating to Government janman lands, the order Iurther directed that the account to be paid to the
Government should include both the term assessment and janmabhogam. It is diIIicult, in our
opinion, to inIer Irom the above that janmam rights in the lands in question were extinguished and
converted into ryotwari estates. The use oI the word Janmabhogam` on the contrary indicates that
the rights oI janmis were kept intact.
18
RESOLUTION - dated 19
th
March 1888, No. 277.
In supersession oI the existing Standing Order, the Iollowing is issued as Standing Order No.
10 :-
1. The State lays no claim to minerals -
Page 22
No.10) that the State dd not cam any propretary rght
over the mnera weath obtanng n ands hed over a
ryotwari patta or n jenmom ands n Maabar. The
State/Brtsh n express terms decared by the sad order
dated 19.03.1888 that whe "t ays no cam" at a to
mneras
(a) In estates hed on sanads of permanent
settement
(b) In enfranchsed nam ands
(c) In regous servce tenements confrmed under
the nam rues on perpetua servce tenure.
(d) In ands hed on tte - deeds, ssued under the
waste and rues, pror to 7
th
October, 1870, n
G.O. 26
th
May, 1882, No. 511 (NotiIication, paragraph 1).
(a) In estates held on sanads oI permanent settlementG.O. 28
th
October 1882 No.1181(b) In
enIranchised inam lands
G.O. 28
th
April 1881 No.861(c) In religious service tenements conIirmed under the inam
rules on perpetual service tenure.
(d) In lands held on title deeds, issued under the waste land rules, prior to 7
th
October,
1870, in which no reservation oI the right oI the State to minerals is made.
2. The right oI the State in minerals is limited in the Iollowing cases to a share in the
produce oI the minerals worked, commuted into a money payment, iI thought necessary, by
Government, in like manner with and in addition to the land assessment :-
G.O. 8
th
October 1883 No.1248.(a) In lands occupied Ior agricultural purposes under ryotwari
pattas G.O. 23
rd
January 1881 No.121(b) In janmom lands in MalabarG.O. 16
th
December 1881
No.1384
Persons intending to work minerals in those lands should give notice oI their intention to the
Collector oI the district, speciIying the lands in which they intend to carry on mining operation and
should pay in two halI-yearly instalments a special assessment Ior minerals in addition to the land
assessment at the Iollowing rates:-
Per acre (Rs.)
1. For mining Ior gold 5
2. For mining Ior metals other than gold 2
3. For mining Ior diamonds and other precious stones 15
4. For mining Ior coal, lime-stone or quarrying Ior building stone . (Such rates as
may be Iixed by the Board Irom time to time
The rates will be doubled iI mining operations are carried on without giving notice to the
Board`s proceedings dated 10
th
July 1882 No.1751Collector. The special assessment will be
entered in the patta granted Ior the land and collected under the provisions oI Act II oI 1834 Madras.
No charge will be made Ior merely prospecting Ior minerals in patta lands iI mines are not
regularly worked. No remission will be granted in respect oI any land rendered unIit Ior surIace
cultivation by the carrying on oI mining operations. This rule does not oI course aIeet in any way the
right which all holders oI lands on patta possess oI digging wells in their lands and oI disposing oI the
gravel and stones which may be thrown up in the course oI such excavation.
Page 23
whch no reservaton of the rght of the State to
mneras s made.
the State/Brtsh camed a mted rght n mneras w.r.t.
ands
(a) occupied for agricultural purposes
under RYOTWARl PATTA5",
(b) jENMOM LAND5 lN MALA8AR"
|emphass supped|
38. The mted rght camed s "to a share n the
produce of the mneras worked, f thought necessary by
government." That rght was exercsed by the same order
wth reference to god, damonds and other metas and
w.r.t. mneras ke coa etc. t was eft to the dscreton of
the government to be exercsed from tme to tme. By
necessary mpcaton, t foows that the State recognsed
the ega rght of the and hoder to the subso metas and
mneras - whatever name such rght s caed -
propretary or otherwse.
39. In vew of BSO No. 10 referred to above, we need not
unduy troube ourseves wth the metaphysca anayss
whether jenmom rghts st subsst n ands of Maabar
area or whether they are converted nto ryotwari ands.
Page 24
Apart from the ega mpcaton of BSO No.10 wth respect
to Maabar, ths Court had aready opned that Brtsh
never camed propretary rghts over the so and jenmis
were recognsed to be the absoute owners of the so. It s
obvous from the BSO No.10 that the Brtsh never camed
any propretary rght n any and n the Od Madras
Provnce whether estate and and therefore both ryotwari
pattadars and jenmis must aso be hed to be the
propretors of the subso rghts/mneras unt they are
deprved of the same by some ega process. Even f we
accept the concuson recorded n the |udgment under
appea that the ands n queston have been converted to
be ands hed on ryotwari settement, the concuson
recorded by us above w.r.t. subso/mnera rghts w st
hod good for the reason that even n the ands hed on
ryotwari patta the Brtsh dd not assert propretary rghts.
40. Nothng s brought to our notce whch ndcates that
the Brtsh ntended and n fact dd deprve the ryotwari
and hoders of the rght to subso/mneras. Subsequent
to 19
th
March, 1888, no aw to the contra s brought to our
notce. Nor any aw made by the Repubc of Inda s
Page 25
brought to our notce. Though we notce aws to the
contra w.r.t. the ands hed under andords tenures.
41. Artce 294
19
of the Consttuton provdes for the
successon by the Unon of Inda or the correspondng
State, as the case may be, of the property whch vested n
the Brtsh Crown mmedatey before the commencement
of the Consttuton. On the other hand, Artce 297
20
makes an express decaraton of vestng n the Unon of
Inda of a mneras and other thngs of vaue underyng
the ocean.
"297. A ands, mneras and other thngs of
vaue underyng the ocean wthn the terrtora
waters or the contnenta shef of Inda sha vest
n the Unon and be hed for the purposes of the
Unon."
|as originally enacted
21
|
19
294 - As Irom the commencement oI this Constitution
(a) all property and assets which immediately beIore such commencement were vested in His
Majesty Ior the purposes oI the Government oI the Dominion oI India and all property and assets
which immediately beIore such commencement were vested in His Majesty Ior the purposes oI the
Government oI each Governor`s Province shall vest respectively in the Union and the corresponding
State, and
(b) all rights, liabilities and obligations oI the Government oI the Dominion oI India and oI
the Government oI each Governor`s Province whether arising out oI any contract or otherwise, shall
be the rights, liabilities and obligations respectively oI the Government oI India and the Government
oI each corresponding State,
Subject to any adjustment made or to be made by reasons oI the creation beIore the
commencement oI this Constitution oI the Dominion oI Pakistan or oI the Provinces oI West Bengal,
East Bengal, West Punjab and East Punjab.
20
Section 297 was amended by the Consttuton (Forteth Amendment) Act, 1976.
21
297 - Things of value within territorial waters or continental shelf and resources of the
exclusive economic zone to vest in the Union
(1) All lands, minerals and other things oI value underlying the ocean within the
territorial waters, or the continental shelI, or the exclusive economic zone, oI India shall vest in the
Union and be held Ior the purposes oI the Union.
(2) All other resources oI the exclusive economic zone oI India shall also vest in the
Union and be held Ior the purposes oI the Union.
(3) The limits oI the territorial waters, the continental shelI, the exclusive economic
zone, and other maritime zones, oI India shall be such as may be speciIied, Irom time to time, by or
Page 26
The contradstncton between both the artces s very
cear and, n our opnon, s not wthout any sgnfcance.
The makers of the Consttuton were aware of the fact that
the mnera weath obtanng n the and mass (terrtory of
Inda) s not vested n the State n a cases. They were
conscous of the fact that under the aw, as t exsted,
propretary rghts n mneras (subso) coud vest n
prvate partes who happen to own the and. Hence the
dfference n the anguage of the two Artces.
42. The above concuson of ours gets fortfed from the
fact that under the Mnera Concesson Rues, 1960 framed
by the Government of Inda n exercse of the powers
conferred n Secton 3 of the Mnes & Mneras Reguaton
& Deveopment Act, 1957, dfferent procedures are
contempated and dfferent sets of rues are made deang
wth the grant of mnng eases n respect of the two
categores of ands n whch the mneras vest, ether n
the Government or n a person other than the
Government. Whe Chapter 4 of the sad rues deas wth
the ands where the mneras vest n the Government,
under any law made by Parliament.
Page 27
Chapter 5 deas wth the ands where the mneras vest n
a person other than the Government. Correspondngy,
the Mnor Mnera Concesson Rues made by the State of
Keraa aso recognses such a dstncton n Chapters V and
VI.
43. In those areas of the Od Madras Provnce to whch
the Estates Land Act apped, the mneras came to be
vested n the State by vrtue of the subsequent
statutory/decaratons (whch are aready taken note of).
But wth reference to those areas where the above-
mentoned Act had no appcaton, such as the Maabar
area of the Od Madras Provnce, whch s now a part of the
State of Keraa, or areas where the ryotwari system was n
vogue, the propretary rght to the subso shoud vest n
the hoder of the and popuary caed pattadar as no aw
n the pre or post consttutona perod s brought to our
notce whch transferred such rght to the State.
44. We must aso hasten to add that even wth reference
to those areas of Od Madras Provnce, whether the ryots
securng pattas pursuant to the aboton of the estates
under the Estates Aboton Act, 1948 etc., woud be
Page 28
entted to subso rghts or not s a queston pendng n
other matters before ths Court. Whether the patta
granted pursuant to the provsons of the Estate Aboton
Act etc., woud entte the pattadar to subso/mnera
rghts or s confned ony to surfaca rghts s a matter on
whch we are not expressng any opnon n ths case. We
are ony deang wth the ega rghts of the pattadars
hodng ands under the ryotwari system of the Od Madras
Provnce, .e. other than the ands covered by the Estates
Land Act - Inam Lands.
45. That eaves us wth another aspect of the matter. We
are requred to examne the correctness of the concuson
recorded by the Hgh Court on the bass of the four
|udgments referred to n para 12 (supra) that a ryotwari
pattadar s not entted to the subso (mneras) n hs
patta and.
46. The frst decson reed upon s 5ecretary of 5tate v.
5ri 5rinivasachariar, AIR 1921 PC 1. In our vew, the
reance paced by the Hgh Court on the abovementoned
|udgment s whoy mspaced. It was a case where the
hoder of shrotrem nam granted some 160 years pror to
Page 29
the decson "by the Government that exsted pror to the
Brtsh Government" camed that the shrotremdas had
unfettered rghts to quarry stone n the shrotrem vage
wthout payment of any royaty. The Prvy Counc hed
that the rghts of the shrotremdas depended upon the
anguage and terms of the orgna grant. We have
aready notced that the sad |udgment was consdered
and reed upon by ths Court n Duvvuru 8alarami Reddy
case (supra). What s mportant n the present context s
that the ssue n 5ri 5rinivasachariar (supra) s not wth
reference to any cam of subso rghts n a and hed
under ryotwari patta. Whatever was decded n that case
s whoy nappcabe to the rghts of a ryotwari pattadar.
Nowhere t was ad down n the sad decson that
rrespectve of the nature of the tenure - a mnera
weath n ths country vested n the Crown or the State.
47. The next case reed upon by the Hgh Court s T.
5waminathan (Dead) and Another v. 5tate Of Madras and
others, AIR 1971 Mad 483. A passage
22
occurrng n the
sad |udgment was reed upon n support of the concuson
22
So, as a ryotwari pattadar, he has every right to the use oI the surIace oI the soil, but his proprietary
right, iI any, in our view, does not extend to the minerals oI the soil. It was a well established
proposition that all minerals underground belonged to the Crown, and now to the State, except in so
Iar as the State has parted with the same wholly or partly in Iavour oI an individual or body.
Page 30
that a ryotwari pattadar has no rght to the
subso/mneras. It s unfortunate that the Madras Hgh
Court opned that t s a we estabshed proposton that
a mneras underground beong to the Crown and now to
the State. Such a statement of aw s recorded wthout any
expanaton whatsoever nor examnaton of any ega
prncpe. From our dscusson so far, we have aready
reached the concuson that nether n Engand nor n ths
country, at east n the Od Madras Provnce, durng the
Brtsh regme, there was any such estabshed proposton
of aw that a the mneras beong to the Crown. On the
other hand, the avaabe matera ony eads to an
nevtabe concuson otherwse.
48. The next case reed upon by the Keraa Hgh Court s
5ashi 8hushan Misra v. jyoti Prasad 5ingh Deo, AIR 1916
PC 191. Ths decson once agan deat wth the rghts of
an namdar partcuary an nam whch was not part of the
Od Madras Provnce. Therefore, the decson s whoy
rreevant n decdng the rghts of a ryotwari pattadar
especay n the Od Madras Provnce.
Page 31
49. We are ony sorry to notce that the next case reed
upon by the Keraa Hgh Court accordng to the |udgment
under appea s ILR 1969 AP 736 tted laliki 5ubbarami
Reddy v. Union of lndia. We searched n van to secure ths
|udgment. Though there s a case reported by the
abovementoned cause tte, whch was decded n 1979
.e. AIR 1980 AP 147 : 1980 (1) APL| 117. At any rate, n
the ght of our earer dscusson, the observaton
23
reed
upon by the |udgment under appea, aegedy from the
above case, shoud not make any dfference.
50. Equay the observatons
24
made n the case of V.
Cangarathinam v. 5tate of Tamil Nadu, 1990 TNL| 374 s
wthout any bass.
51. The other matera whch prompted the Hgh Court to
reach the concuson that the subso/mneras vest n the
State s (a) rectas of a patta whch s aready noted by us
earer (n para 12) whch states that f mneras are found
n the property covered by the patta and f the pattadar
expots those mneras, the pattadar s abe for a
23
'Not a single case has been cited beIore us in which it was held that a ryotwari pattadar is the owner
oI sub-soil rights.
24
'Irom the extracts given above, we do not think that it is possible to arrive at any other conclusion
except to hold that the State is the owner oI the minerals underneath the surIace. ThereIore, we agree
with the learned Advocate General that the State is the owner oI the minerals.
Page 32
separate tax n addton to the tax shown n the patta and
(2) certan standng orders of the Coector of Maabar
whch provded for coecton of segnorage fee n the
event of the mnng operaton beng carred on. We are of
the cear opnon that the rectas n the patta or the
Coectors standng order that the expotaton of mnera
weath n the patta and woud attract addtona tax, n our
opnon, cannot n any way ndcate the ownershp of the
State n the mneras. The power to tax s a necessary
ncdent of soveregn authorty (mperum) but not an
ncdent of propretary rghts (domnum). Propretary rght
s a compendum of rghts consstng of varous
consttuent, rghts. If a person has ony a share n the
produce of some property, t can never be sad that such
property vests n such a person. In the nstant case, the
State asserted ts rght to demand a share n the
produce of the mneras worked though the expresson
empoyed s rght - t s n fact the Soveregn authorty
whch s asserted. From the anguage of the BSO No.10 t
s cear that such rght to demand the share coud be
exercsed ony when the pattadar or somebody camng
Page 33
through the pattadar, extracts/works the mneras - the
authorty of the State to coect money on the happenng
of an event - such a demand s more n the nature of an
excse duty/a tax. The asserton of authorty to coect a
duty or tax s n the ream of the soveregn authorty, but
not a propretary rght.
52. On the other hand, t appears from the |udgment
under appea that the State of Keraa tsef produced the
BSO No.10 referred to (supra). Unfortunatey, nether the
content of the sad order nor the ega effect of the sad
order has been examned by the Hgh Court and the Hgh
Court wth reference to the sad order made a cursory
observaton as foows:
"The State has aso produced the
proceedngs of the Board of Revenue, dated 19
th
March, 1888 as Ext.R1(L). By that proceedngs,
standng order No.10 s ssued n supersesson of
the exstng standng order. It categorses four
knds of ands. The frst head s the estates hed
on sanads of permanent settement, second s the
enfranchsed nam ands and the thrd s the
regous servce tenements conferred under the
nam rues on perpetua servce tenure and the
fourth s the ands hed on tte-deeds, ssued
under the waste and rues, pror to 7
th
October
1870, n whch no reservaton of the rght of the
State to mneras s made."
Page 34
53. The ony other submsson whch we are requred to
dea wth before we part wth ths matter s the argument
of the earned counse for the State that n vew of the
scheme of the Mnes and Mneras (Deveopment and
Reguaton) Act, 1957 whch prohbts under Secton 4
25
the carryng on of any mnng actvty n ths country
except n accordance wth the permt, cence or mnng
ease as the case may be, granted under the Act, the
appeants cannot cam any propretary rght n the sub-
so. In our vew, ths argument s ony stated to be
re|ected.
54. Mnes and Mneras Act s an enactment made by the
Parament to reguate the mnng actvtes n ths country.
The sad Act does not n any way purport to decare the
propretary rghts of the State n the mnera weath nor
25
4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease : - (1) No person shall
undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in
accordance with the terms and conditions oI a reconnaissance permit or oI a prospecting licence or,
as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder|:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall aIIect any prospecting or mining operations
undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions oI a prospecting licence or
mining lease granted beIore the commencement oI this Act which is in Iorce at such commencement.
Provided Iurther that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations
undertaken by the Geological Survey oI India, the Indian Bureau oI Mines, the Atomic Minerals
Directorate Ior Exploration and Research oI the Department oI Atomic Energy oI the Central
Government, the Directorates oI Mining and Geology oI any State Government ( by whatever name
called ), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government Company within the
meaning oI Section 617 oI the Companies Act, 1956.
Page 35
does t contan any provson dvestng any owner of a
mne of hs propretary rghts. On the other hand, varous
enactments made by the Parament such as Cokng Coa
Mnes (Natonasaton) Act, 1972 and Coa Bearng Areas
(Acquston and Deveopment) Act, 1957 make express
decaratons under Secton 4 and 7 respectvey
26
provdng for acquston of the mnes and rghts in or
over the land from whch coa s obtanabe. If the
understandng of the State of Keraa that n vew of the
provsons of the Mnes and Mneras Deveopment
(Reguaton) Act, 1957, the propretary rghts n mnes
stand transferred and vest n the State, t woud be whoy
an unnecessary exercse on the part of the Parament to
26
Section 4 of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 - 4(1) On the appointed day, the
right, title and interest oI the owners in relation to the coking coal mines speciIied in the First
Schedule shall stand transIerred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government, Iree Irom all
incumbrances.
(2) For the removal oI doubts, it is hereby declared that iI, aIter the appointed day, any
other coal mine is Iound, aIter an investigation made by the Coal Board, to contain coking coal, the
provisions oI the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, shall, until that mine is
nationalized by an appropriate legislation apply to such mine.
Section 7 of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - 7(1) II the
Central Government is satisIied that coal is obtainable in the whole or any part oI the land notiIied
under sub-section (1) oI section 4, it may, within a period oI two years Irom the date oI the said
notiIication or within such Iurther period not exceeding one year in the aggregate as the Central
Government may speciIy in this behalI, by notiIication in the OIIicial Gazette, give notice oI its
intention to acquire the whole or any part oI the land or oI any rights in or over such land, as the case
may be.
(2) iI no notice to acquire the land or any rights in or over such land is given under sub-
section (1) within the period allowed thereunder, the notiIication issued under sub-section (1) oI
section 4 shall cease to have eIIect on the expiration oI three years Irom the date thereoI.
Page 36
make aws such as the ones mentoned above deang wth
the natonasaton of mnes.
55. Even wth regard to the mneras whch are greaty
mportant and hghy senstve n the context of the
natona securty and aso the securty of humanty ke
uranum - the Atomc Energy Act, 1962 ony provdes
under Secton 5
27
for prohbton or reguaton of mnng
27
Section 5 - Control over mining or concentration of substances
containing uranium
(1) II the Central Government is satisIied that any person is mining or is about to
mine any substance Irom which, in the opinion oI the Central Government, uranium can be
or may reasonably be expected to be, isolated or extracted, or is engaged or is about to be
engaged in treating or concentrating by any physical, chemical or metallurgical process any
substance Irom which, in the opinion oI the Central Government, uranium can be or may
reasonably be expected to be, isolated or extracted, the Central Government may by notice in
writing given to that person either --
(a) require him in conducting the mining operations or in treating or concentrating
the substance aIoresaid to comply with such terms and conditions and adopt such
processes as the Central Government may in the notice, or Irom time to time thereaIter,
think Iit to speciIy, or
(b) totally prohibit him Irom conducting the mining operations or treating or
concentrating the substance aIoresaid.
(2) Where any terms and conditions are imposed on any person conducting any
mining operations or treating or concentrating any substance under cl. (a) oI sub-section (1),
the Central Government may, having regard to the nature oI the terms and conditions, decide
as to whether or not to pay any compensation to that person and the decision oI the Central
Government shall be Iinal :
Provided that where the Central Government decides not to pay any compensation,
it shall record in writing a brieI statement giving the reasons Ior such decision.
(3) Where the Central Government decides to pay any compensation under sub-
section (2), the amount thereoI shall be determined in accordance with section 21 but in
calculating the compensation payable, no account shall be taken oI the value oI any uranium
contained in the substance reIerred to in sub-section (1).
Page 37
actvty n such mnera. Under Secton 10
28
of the Act, t
s provded that the Government of Inda may provde for
compusory vestng n the Centra Government of
excusve rghts to work those mneras. The sad Act does
not n any way decare the propretary rght of the State.
(4) Where any mining operation or any process oI treatment or concentration oI any
substance is prohibited under clause (b) oI sub-section (1), the Central Government shall pay
compensation to the person conducting the mining operations or using the process oI
treatment or concentration and the amount oI such compensation shall be determined in
accordance with section 21 but in calculating the compensation payable, no account shall be
taken oI the value oI any uranium contained in the substance.
28
Section 10 - Compulsory acquisition of rights to work minerals
(1) Where it appears to the Central Government that any minerals Irom which in its
opinion any oI the prescribed substances can be obtained are present in or on any land, either
in a natural state or in a deposit oI waste material obtained Irom any underground or surIace
working, it may by order provide Ior compulsorily vesting in the Central Government the
exclusive right, so long as the order remains in Iorce, to work those minerals and any other
minerals which it appears to the Central Government to be necessary to work with those
minerals, and may also provide, by that order or a subsequent order, Ior compulsorily vesting
in the Central Government any other ancillary rights which appear to the Central
Government to be necessary Ior the purpose oI working the minerals aIoresaid including
(without prejudice to the generality oI the Ioregoing provisions)--
(a) rights to withdraw support;
(b) rights necessary Ior the purpose oI access to or conveyance oI the minerals
aIoresaid or the ventilation or drainage oI the working;
(c) rights to use and occupy the surIace oI any land Ior the purpose oI erecting any
necessary buildings and installing any necessary plant in connection with the working oI
the minerals aIoresaid;
(d) rights to use and occupy Ior the purpose oI working the minerals aIoresaid any
land Iorming part oI or used in connection with an existing mine or quarry, and to use or
acquire any plant used in connection with any such mine or quarry; and
(e) rights to obtain a supply oI water Ior any oI the purposes connected with the
working oI the minerals aIoresaid, or to dispose oI water or other liquid matter obtained
in consequence oI working such minerals.
(2) Notice oI any order proposed to be made under this section shall be served by the
Central Government--
Page 38
56. Smary, the Ofeds (Reguaton and Deveopment)
Act, 1948 deas wth the ofeds contanng crude o,
petroeum etc. whch are the most mportant mneras n
the modern word. The Act does not anywhere decare
the propretary rght of the State.
57. For the above-mentoned reasons, we are of the
opnon that there s nothng n the aw whch decares that
a mnera weath sub-so rghts vest n the State, on the
other hand, the ownershp of sub-so/mnera weath
shoud normay foow the ownershp of the and, uness
the owner of the and s deprved of the same by some
vad process. In the nstant appeas, no such deprvaton
s brought to our notce and therefore we hod that the
appeants are the propretors of the mneras obtanng n
ther ands. We make t cear that we are not makng any
(a) on all persons who, but Ior the order, would be entitled to work the minerals
aIIected; and
(b) on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants Ior a month or Ior less than
a month) oI any land in respect oI which rights are proposed to be acquired under the
order.
(3) Compensation in respect oI any right acquired under this section shall be paid in
accordance with section 21, but in calculating the compensation payable, no account shall be
taken oI the value oI any minerals present in or on land aIIected by the order, being minerals
speciIied in the order, as those Irom which in the opinion oI the Central Government
uranium or any concentrate or derivative oI uranium can be obtained.
Page 39
decaraton regardng ther abty to pay royaty to the
State as that ssue stands referred to a arger Bench.
..............J.
(R.M. LODHA)
..............J.
(|. CHELAMESWAR )
..............J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR )
New Deh;
|uy 8, 2013.
Page 40
40

You might also like