JANTA BRICK KILN CO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by two brick-kiln companies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking a direction that the respondents had no jurisdiction and power to issue notice for assessment and to recover royalty on brick-earth as a minor mineral. Demand notice dated 21. 5. 1981 issued to the petitioners to deposit royalty amounting to Rs. 7611.00 for the period 14. 9. 1977 to 31. 3. 1979, is sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioners in the present petition were running brick-kilns at village Sardulgarh, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, and extracted brick-earth from the land taken on lease from private land-owners. The Mining Officer of the Department of Industries, Government of Punjab, made assessment of royalty at Rs. 7611.00 and issued the demand notice.

(3.) THE question about the leviability of royalty was earlier examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 894 of 1981 and several other petitions and, vide judgment dated 3. 6. 1982, it was held that the claim in respect of the vesting of brick-earth is to be established on the basis of evidence in a Court of law and not merely on the basis of entries in the Sharait-wajib-ul-arz of the revenue estate. The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. The cases were remanded by the Supreme Court to the High Court to adjudicate upon the question of proper interpretation of the relevant entries in Wajib-ul-arz on the basis of evidence of the parties. Matters were, therefore, decided afresh by learned Single Judge of this High Court after considering the evidence of the rival parties. Against the decision of the Single Judge, letters patent appeals were filed. A Division Bench of this Court heard Letter Patent Appeal No. 622 of 1986 (The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Subhash Chander) and several other Letters Patent Appeals and, after examining various provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, observed that Sharait-wajib-ul-arz was included in the record of rights of an estate. The Division Bench, vide judgment dated 24. 8. 1990, then took the view that brick-earth belonged to and vested in the land-owners and proprietors of the land. Reliance was placed on Amar Singh Modi Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors. , A. I. R. 1972 Punjab and Haryana 356; State of Punjab through the Collector, Hoshiarpur v. Shadi Lal and Ors. , 1985 (1) Land Laws Reporter 265; and Punjab State through the Collector, Hoshiarpur v. Jagdish Chander and Anr. , (1983)85 Punjab Law Reporter 695. It was held that, according to sharait-wajib-ul-arz, the brick-earth did not vest in the State and vested in the land-owners. It was further held that State Government would be only entitled to charge revenue under the Punjab Land Revenue (Special Assessment) Act, 1955, but would not be entitled to charge any royalty.