RAM MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to be the lessee from owners mentioned in para 2 of the petitioner of right to quarry 'sand' has sought a direction against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not to interfere with his said right. As according to him, the material 'sand' is neither a major nor a minor mineral and therefore, it does not vest in the Government.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it is denied that the petitioner had taken the lease of mining sand as no document had been placed on the record in proof of the said fact. It has further been asserted that mineral rights vested in the State Government and the owners of the land has no right to grant lease to quarry sand from their lands. It has also been mentioned that the present writ petition is covered by a Division Bench Judge of this Court in The State of Haryana v. Mangat Ram, 1976 PunLJ 557.

(3.) It is not disputed that the matter in Mangat Ram's case pertains to quarrying rights of 'sand' from the very village with which we are concerned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the ratio of the said judgment on the ground that the provisions of Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, (for short, the Act) had not been considered by the Bench. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, only such mines and minerals would vest in the Government regarding which notification envisaged therein had been made. Since no such notification had been made covering the major or minor minerals obtaining in the village in question, the proprietors in whose land such minerals occurred are entitled to be the owners thereof.