LAWS(P&H)-1974-7-28

MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 25, 1974
MANGAT RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with these allegations. The petitioner got on lease agricultural land measuring khewat No. 130 Min, khatauni No. 140-Min, rectangle No. 115, killas Nos. 6 to 9 and 15; in all measuring 40 kanals situated in village Khewara, and land incorporated in khewat No. 54/56 Min, khatauni No. 77 Min, rectangle No. 59, killa No. 9, measuring 6 kanals and 16 marlas situated in village Palra, from Shri Ram Chander son of Shri Jot Ram and Shri Kidara son of Shri Amar Singh, the respective owners of the two parcels of the land. It is alleged that the owners of land were also entitled to win over sub-soil sand and were so competent to transfer all the rights which they possessed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was carrying on the business of extracting sand and while he was engaged in this activity, respondent No. 3, in purported exercise of the right of ownership of the sand quarries belonging to the State Government stopped him from carrying on the quarrying operations, which action according to the petitioner, was illegal.

(2.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that sand which comes within the definition of "minor minerals" belong to the State Government and under the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the petitioner was not entitled to carry on the quarrying operations.

(3.) This case came up before me on January 9, 1974, when I held that the petitioner was in possession of land and even if sand belong to the State Government, his possession could not be disturbed without payment to him of compensation for use and occupation of land. I also held that there was a serious dispute regarding title to these minerals inasmuch as the petitioner had himself been acquiring short term leases from the Government and so, the matter could more appropriately be agitated in a civil Court. However, the petitioner filed an appeal against my judgment which was allowed with the observations that this Court was not debarred from determining the question of title and that the same should be accordingly decided. This is how the case has once again been placed before me.