Punjab State vs Jagdish Chander and another

Pritpal Singh, J.—This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 475 to 480 of 1975 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases.

The principal point to be decided in all these appeals is whether the brick earth excavated from the lands pertaining to all the six cases vests in the State of Punjab entitling it to recover royalty from the landowners in respect thereof. This point has been decided against the Punjab State in all the six cases by the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

The six suits filed by the brick kilin owners of District Hoshiarpur were tried jointly as they involved common questions of facts and law. The plaintiffs had been carrying on the manufacture and sale of bricks under valid licences in their favour in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Order. In order to manufacture bricks they had been excavating earth from their lands. The Central Government vide its notification No. MJU-159(17)/54-A-11 dated 1st June, 1958 declared the bricks earth as a minor mineral. On the strength of this notification the appellant State of Punjab demanded royalty in respect of brick earth from the owners of the brick kilns on the ground that this minor mineral vests in the Government. The owners of the brick kilns from whom the royalty was demanded brought these six suits for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab from recovering royalty from them denying that the brick earth of their lands vests in the Government. Thus the vital question which arose for determination before the trial Court was whether the minor mineral of brick earth in respect of the lands of the brick klin owners vests in the State of Punjab. The learned trial Court answered this question in the negative and in consequence held that the State of Punjab was not competent to demand or recover any royalty in respect of the brick earth from the owners of the brick kilns. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate Court. The State of Punjab has, therefore, been restrained from recovering royalty from the plaintiffs-respondents by granting decrees of permanent injunction in plaintiffs'' favour.

It is not disputed that the question whether right to a particular mineral vests in the State Government or in the owner of the land has to be decided in terms of the Wajib-Ul-Arz read with Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. We have, therefore, to look to the conditions in the Wajib-Ul-Arz of the village in, which kilns are situated. Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is as follows:--

(1) When in any record-of-rights completed before the eighteenth day of November, 1871, it is not expressly provided that any forest, quarry, unclaimed, unoccupied, deserted or wasteland, spontaneous produce or other accessory interest in land belongs to the land owners, it shall be presumed to belong to the Government.

(2) When in any record of rights completed after that date it is not expressly provided that any forest or quarry or any such land or interest belongs to the Government, it shall be presumed to belong to the land-owners.

In the present case Wajib-Ul-Arz, which is relied upon by both the parties is of 1884 and, therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would be applicable. Unless it is expressly provided in the Wajib-Ul-Arz that the brick earth belongs to the Government, it will have to be presumed that it belongs to the landowners. The Courts below have given a concurrent finding that in the Wajib-Ul-Arz relating to the villages in which the lands in question are situated, it is not provided that the brick earth belongs to the Government. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to level any criticism on this finding. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding of the Courts below that the brick earth of the lands in question belongs to the landowners and it does not vest in the State of Punjab. It is, therefore, manifest that the Government is not competent to demand royalty in respect of the brick earth under Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, framed by the State Government u/s 15 of the Minor and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Under Rules 20 and 21 of the said Rules the Government can demand royalty only in respect of minor minerals which actually vest in the State It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shanthi Saroop Sharma and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .

Thus finding no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, all the six appeals are dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.