BHOOR CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Bhoorchand under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he had obtained the lease of some 2400 bighas of land from the jagirdar of Sanwarla, Tehsil Siwana, by a deed dated the 3rd december, 1951, and that he had been carrying on the work of manufacture of salt over 1 1/2 acre out of the area mentioned above for the last four years and invested round about Rs 10,000/- over such manufacture. He also states to have applied but without success so far, for a licence, to the General Manager, Central excise and Salt Government of India, for the purpose of manufacturing salt over a larger area but contends that so far as the existing area, to which he has confined the manufacturing operations is concerned, namely, the one and half acre, he is perfectly within his legal rights as such manufacture is covered by a press-note dated the 23rd April, 1948. issued by the Government of India under Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act (No I) of 1944. The effect of this press-note briefly put, is that the Government in their desire to set up the production of indigenous salt and to attain self-sufficiency in this vital commodity permitted free production of salt (without the necessity of obtaining any licence) by individuals or groups, on land to which they have lawful access for this purpose, and to carry on the manufacture by any process they desire, i. e. , by construction of pans and solar evaporation or boiling of brine or excavation of saline earth or any other process; provided that the total area of land covered by the salt works, set up by any individual or group, is not more than 10 acres. Government, however, reserved their right to take suitable preventive measures against the sale of unwholesome salt for human consumption, in the interest of national health. The position was later reviewed in 1955. and by another press-note dated the 11th May, 1955, the Government of India laid down inter alia that after March 1, 1955, individuals or groups may freely produce salt in any land to which they have lawful access for this purpose provided that the total area of the land covered by the salt works does not exceed 2 1/2 acres. The case of the petitioner is that he was well within his rights in manufacturing salt over 1 1/2 acre out of the total area obtained on lease by him from the jagirdar but that he had been wrongfully restrained from such manufacture by the collector of Banner within whose district the land in question is situate and that thereby the Collector had infringed his fundamental right to carry on his trade or business within the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner consequently prays that this Court do issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an order in the nature thereof against the Rajasthan State and the collector Barmer and Tehsildar Siwana who have been respectively arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in this petition. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that according to the petitioner he was carrying on the manufacture of salt by the method of construction of pans and solar evaporation only.

(3.) THE petition has been opposed by the State, which is the principal contesting party, mainly on two grounds.- The first contention is that in the former State of marwar, the State was the owner of all minerals including salt, irrespective of the consideration whether the land whereon salt was produced was held in Khalsa (that is, territory directly governed by the State) or in jagir, and reliance is placed in support of this contention on Section 231 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act No. 10 of 1949, and it is submitted that after the formation of the present State of rajasthan that right devolved on and became vested in the present State. The second contention is that the petitioner was. in terms of his lease in occupation of 2400 bighas or 960 acres of land for the purpose of manufacturing salt and, therefore, he was not in any case, protected by 'the press-notes of the government of India and the policy adumbrated therein. At the outset, two things require to be noticed in connection with the reply of the State by way of clearing the ground. In the first place, the position as indicated by the press-notes has not been denied on behalf of the State and, therefore, we accept it as correct. In the second place, no contention has been raised on behalf of the State that the petitioner has been actually manufacturing salt on more than 1 1/2 acre of land as alleged by him. We are, therefore, unable to agree that hie petition can be thrown out on the mere ground that he has obtained a lease for and is in possession of as much as over 900 acres of land in this connection. The possession of an extensive area by the petitioner in itself is, in our opinion, of no real consequence for the purposes of the present case so long as the petitioner restricts his salt-manufacturing operations to the area within the limitations set forth in the press-notes.