SUBASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the rival claims of the Government and the landowners over the vesting of brick-earth (a minor mineral) must be adjudicated only on the basis of the entries in wajib-ul-arz of the revenue estate is the significant common question which has come to the fore in this set of nine civil writ petitions. Equally in issue is an apparent conflict of authority betwixt two Division Bench judgments reported as State of Haryana v. Mangat Ram, 1976 Cur LJ (Civ) 498 and State of Haryana v. Gram Panchayat, Village Khori Jamalpur, 1980 Punj LJ 204, which, indeed, had necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) Admittedly, the issues of law and fact are identical herein and it, therefore, suffices to advert briefly to the facts in Civil Writ Petn. No. 894 of 1981 (Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab). The petitioner herein carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks in his kiln situated in village Ghaggar Sarai, Tehsil Rajpura, after extracting brick-earth from land taken on lease from private owners of the said revenue estate. It is averred that the Sharat-wajibul-arz (Annexure P-3) thereof has not specifically reserved brick-earth as vesting in the Government and, therefore, the ownership thereof rests with the landowners. Consequently, the respondent-State not being possessed of any proprietary rights in brick earth, is not entitled to recover any royalty etc. therefor. Nevertheless, the Mining Officer, Department of Industries of Punjab, Mubarakpur, issued the notice Annexure P-1 certifying that a sum of Rs. 6239.44 was recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner as royalty for brick-earth. It is further the claim that before the issuance of this notice, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show that brick-earth did not vest in the State and, therefore, no royalty or other charges therefor could be levied. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 54-F of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, before the State Geologist, Department of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh, who, on the 27th of Feb., 1981, is alleged to have declined to consider any other matter apart from the proof of the deposit of the due amount and straightway rejected the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the writ petition placing basic reliance on Gram Panchayat, Village Khori Jamalpur's case (1980 Pun LJ 204) (supra).

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, the preliminary objection (subsequently strenuously pressed in argument) is that the petition relates to the title and vesting of minor minerals which involves an intricate dispute on facts and, therefore, cannot be adjudicated in the civil writ jurisdiction. Particular reliance in this context is placed on the Full Bench judgment in Amar Singh Modi Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 Punj and Har 356. It has been averred that, according to the sharat-wajib-ul-arz of village Chalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure R-1), the right to minerals vests with the State Government when read with Section 42(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue`, 1887. On the point of alternative remedy, it is pleaded that an appeal under rule 54-F of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, lies to the State Geologist as well as to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. On merits, it is averred that the petitioner, in fact, is running his brick-kiln and is extracting brick-earth from land situated in village Chalheri without any lawful authority. Basic reliance was placed on Annexure R-1, the Sharat-wajib-ul-arz of the said revenue estate, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mangat Ram's case (1976 Cur LJ (Civ) 498) (supra); and Letters Patent Appeal No. 264 (State of Haryana v. N. K. Kohli etc.), decided on the 5th April, 1977. The basic stand of the respondent-State is reiterated that the right to minor minerals has to be decided on evidence and, as this would involve dispute on facts, it cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction nor is it for the High Court to direct as to which of the rival parties shall go to the Civil Court to get its title established. Reliance is placed on a number of judgments of this Court that the title to minor minerals primarily vests in the Government.