NARAYAN PRASAD BHOI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 26th November 1963 in Appeal No. 174/61. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant who is a resident of Damoh town extracted clay and manufactured bricks on a commercial scale in 1958-59 and in 1959-60 from khasra numbers 312/1 and 312/2 in Mouza Singhpur. These khasra numbers belonged to one Baba Gangadas who had abandoned the village several years ago and was not heard of ever since. Sand and clay within a radius of 10 miles of Damoh town was declared by the State Government to have a commercial value and Mouza Singhpur is covered by the notification. The clay extracted by the appellant was, therefore, a mineral from 7-4-59, the date of the State Government's notification in this regard. Since the extraction was made without lawful authority the Collector, Damoh by his order dated 30th June 1961 imposed a penalty of Rs. 800 under section 247 (7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) and also ordered the seizure and confiscation of 150000 bricks of the appellant which were found on the spot. The appellant preferred an appeal against this order to the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division who confirming the order of the Collector, Damoh rejected the appeal.

(2.) SHRI A.L. Halwe appeared for the appellant and SHRI K. K. Dubey appeared for the State. Their arguments were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked the order of the learned Additional Commissioner on the following grounds :-

(3.) I find much force in the third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Collector has ordered the seizure and confiscation of the bricks manufactured by the appellant out of the clay extracted by him. Section 247 (8) of the Code only authorises the Collector to seize and confiscate the minerals extracted. It was clay which was extracted by the appellant. The bricks made out of clay are not the same thing. Bricks are made after baking clay in blocks. In the course of baking the clay undoubtedly undergoes certain chemical changes and it ceases to be clay. The Collector, therefore, was not competent to seize the bricks prepared out of clay when the clay had lost its original and natural form. The learned Collector had, therefore, erred in seizing and confiscating the bricks prepared by the appellant and appropriating , the sale proceeds to the Government. The order of the Collector therefore, deserves to be set aside. If the bricks have not been sold they may be released and handed over to the appellant. In case they have been sold out the appellant is entitled to get back the sale proceeds. The learned Additional Commissioner, though in appeal memo the appellant had clearly raised a point against seizure and confiscation of bricks, made no mention of it. In fact he did not discuss the action of the learned Collector regarding seizure and confiscation of bricks.