NEMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions, namely, Nos. 1126/1972 and 1117/1972 raise common questions of law, and shall be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the writ petition No. 1126/1972 are that the petitioner despatched 1115. 4 metric tonnes of stone from the Railway Station, Tinwari, District Jodhpur. THE mines department of the State Government found that the petitioner had excavated the said stone during the period from 26 2 66 to 3-12-69. It proceeded to issue a notice on 17-9-70 to the petitioner that the mineral was excavated without any lease, licence or permit and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs, 1951. 26p. against royalty amount within a period of 7 days It was also said that on failure to so deposit the amount, recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1956 will be taken. In reply to the notice, the petitioner stated that he had purchased stone from the market at Jodhpur from where he brought it to Tinwari and then despatched. He was not therefore, liable to pay any royalty. THE stone was Khanda for masonary and as per item No. l (b) (ii) of the Schedule I to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the R. M. M. G. Rules) the royalty paya-ble at the rate of 0 30p per tonne was only of Rs 335 and not of Rs. 1951-26 as demanded by the department. But the Assistant Engineer (Recovery) issued a writ of demand on 29-5-72 under section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, read with Rule 24 of the Land Revenue (Payments, Credits, Refunds and Retovery Rules, 1958, asking the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within 15 days of the receipt of this writ of demand. THE petitioner has filed very of the price or royalty for the mineral taken out otherwise than in virtue of any grant. THE word 'due' occurring in the said sec. 25 (2) merely means payable without any reference to any time. It enables recovery of any sum becoming payable prior to or after the commencement of the enactment. THEse provisions are retrospective in character and any rule such 55 and 64 of the R. M. M. C. , Rules which though made before 13-9-72 and even if suffered from any defect of vires, stood fully validated by the protective cover retrospectively spread over them by the aforesaid amendments in the present Act. (Para 14) the present petition on 15-6-72 praying that the State be restrained from recovering any amount on account of royalty from the petitioner and that the notices issued in that behalf as aforesaid be also quashed.

(3.) THE term royalty, no doubt, has been defined in the rules to mean a charge payable in respect of mineral excavated from any Government land leased cut under the rules under a lease but then, that meaning shall be limited and shall be applied only where the term royalty is being used with reference to a lease. Since minerals vest in the State Government, it is entitled to recover royalty even in cases to which the R. M. M. C. , Rules are not attracted and as long as it is not prohibited under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. THE royalty that the State is proposing to recover means nothing more or less than a charge which every sovereign as owner is entitled to recover for the right or prerogative granted by him specially over minerals etc. such grant being implied or made even ex post facto.