THRESSIAMMA JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have gained experience to know that the Madras Law of Land Tenure has its specific peculiarities in the law of land tenure of this State. This is with reference to many aspects regarding the law of land tenures. One of the manifold aspects becomes the subject matter of this petition. The aspect is as to whether the title of ownership of the land in question gives right to the owner of the land with regard to what appears below the surface of the soil. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, what appears is that this aspect has not at all been alive to the authorities and in spite of the said aspects, there has been a demand of alleged dues with regard to the rights of the petitioner relating to the activities below the surface of the land.

(2.) This petition requires consideration of the provisions of the Central Act - the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, a cursory reference though not much concerned with the subject matter of the petition to the rules framed under the Central Act known as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, but more than that to the provisions of the State Rules known as the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967.

(3.) Before that a little spread over of the factual matrix would become necessary in view of the main prayer of the petitioner for a declaration that she is not bound to pay royalty to the Government for the granite rocks removed from the quarry belonging to the petitioner and as a consequence quashing of demand notices of royalty (Exts. P5 and P6) to the petition demanding the royalty in question.