STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana is the appellant in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The respondent Mangat Ram obtained a lease of certain agricultural land from the owners of that land. He was engaged in the business of quarrying sand from the land claiming that the owners of the land were entitled to win the sub-soil sand. The Government objected to the respondent's activity and, therefore, he filed the writ petition to direct the Government not to interfere with his right to quarry sand from the land. The Government filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that the mineral rights in the villages Khewara and Palra belonged to the Government, according to the entries in the wajib-ul-arz. In fact the respondent himself had taken short-term leases from the Government of the right to quarry sand from the land. The respondent was, therefore, not entitled to claim that he was entitled to the quarrying rights as against the Government. It was also pleaded that the lease obtained by the respondent from the owners of the land was void as there was a contravention of Rule 40 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent and not the Government was entitled to the mineral rights in the land. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was based on two grounds :-

(2.) The first question for consideration is, whether sand is a "mineral". Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, defines "minerals" as including all minerals except mineral oils. Section 3(a) defines "minor minerals" as including, among various other items, sand also. The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, defines "minerals" and "minor minerals" as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 made under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, contain a definition of "minor minerals" and that definition includes sand. Before the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, came into force, the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 1933, were in force and they contained definition of "minerals" which included "sand in any area or locality which the State Government may by notification direct". This definition implies that basically sand was considered to be a mineral even under the 1933 Rules though a notification by the State Government was necessary in regard to the area or locality where it was to be so considered. The various definitions of the expressions "minerals" and "minor minerals" show that the legislature has always considered sand to be a "mineral" or "minor mineral". Even under the General law, the position has always been the same. In Amar Singh Modi Lal V. State of Haryana and others, 1972 AIR(P&H) 356, Sandhawalia, J. has referred to a large number of cases where the question whether sand is a mineral, has been considered. In Earl Cowley V. Wellesley, 1866 1 Eq 656, Romilly observed :

(3.) We are, therefore, satisfied that sand has always been considered to be "mineral" despite the modified definition of "Minor Mineral" in the 1933 Rules.