STATE OF PUNJAB versus VISHKARMA AND CO: ETC. on 5 February 1993

...

A

STATE OF PUNJAB

v.

VISHKARMA AND CO: ETC.

FEBRUARY 5, 1993

B

[L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957/The Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964-Removal of brick earth by briclc-Manufacturers from lands on leases or licences granted by land-owners-Whether obtainment of permit/licence and payment of royalty are necessary.

Punjab Land Revenue Ac4 1987: Sections 31, 41 and 42-Scope and applicability of;. Wajib-ut-a~at is.

D

Respondent companies filed suits in Civil Courts for perpetual injuctions restraining the Appellant State from demanding payment of royalty for removal of brick-earth from owners' lands and insisting upon obtaining of requisite mining licences or permits. They based their claim on the premise that though the brick earth was classified as minor mineral under the Rules, since the State of Punjab was not the owner of E brick-earth in the lands concerned, no necessity arose for payment of royalty and for obtainment of mining licences or permits. The Civil Courts accepted the claim and decreed the suits, granting the reliefs prayed for.

The Appellant State carried the matter before the First Appellate F Court in vain. Further Regular Second Appeals before the High Court ~ were also dismissed by a Common Judgment, impugned herein, by way of Civil Appeals by Special Leave. The Appellant contended (i) that the Courts below went wrong in holding that the brick-earth did not vest in the State on the basis of entries in wajib-nl-arz pertaining to the lands of G the estates of the land owners; (ii) that as the presumption, drawn from the entries in wajib-ul-arz, to the effect that the brick earth in the lands 'concerned belonged to the lands' owners, was only rebuttable, the decrees should have been set aside, remanding the suits to the courts of first instance with a direction to them to afford an opportunity to the State to adduce rebuttal evidence. H

H

A

Dismissing the Appeals, this Court,

HELD : 1. Although Brick-earth is indisputably a minor r..ineral, it Is not any of the mines or minerals covered by section 41 of the Revenue Act as would make it become the property of the State. If the owner of snch brick-earth is the State of, Punjab, liability to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and to obtain permit or licence for such removal, would necessarily arise because of the operation of the Act and the Rules. But the courts below have concurrently found on their reading of the entires in wajib-ul-arz pertaining to the estates concerned that the brick-earth was in lands which formed the estates of the private owners and as such the same belonged to such land-owners. [766G]

B

c

2. Wazib-ul-arz document being record-of-rights of estates com-pleted after 18th day of November 1871, and there being nothing expressly stated in them that the forest or quarry or land or interest in the esta!es belong to the Government, the lands in such estates including brick-earth D in them shall be presumed to belong to the concerned land-owne<s as is declared in sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Revenue Act. (767 A-BJ

3. The Courts have again pointed out that there being no provision similar to the provision in sub-section (3) which permits adducing of rebuttal evidence against the presumption that the lands belong to the E State under Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the Revenue Act, the presumption which arises under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Revenue Act that the forest or quarry or land or interest belong to land-owner, cannot at all.be rebutted by the State by adducing any con-trary evidence. Even otherwise, when the State has not chosen to adduce F any evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the entires in Wajib-ul-arz documents-record-of-rights there can be no valid reason for the Courts to hold that the brick-earth in the lands of the estates concerned has become the property of the State, so as to require the brick-manufac-turers to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and obtain permits G or licences under the Rules. [767C-F]

4. When all the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings to the effect that the ownership of the brick-earth belong to land-owners and· not to the State on a correct appreciation of all evidence adduced in the case and on a proper application of the law governing the same, there H could be no justification to interfere with such findings in these appeds.

--.,..

·---...r

,.-1_~

_,.___

,

So also no valid reason has been shown to set aside the lower courts' A judgments and decrees and send the matters to the Courts of first iu-stance with a direction to permit the State to adduce rebuttal evidence as regards entries in record-of-rights. [767G-H]

5. Wajib-ul-arz is a document included in the record-of- rights since it contains the statements OD matters envisaged under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1458-1469 of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.82 of the Punjab & [c ]

Haryana High Court in R.SA. Nos. 902-913 of 1973.

S.P. Goyal, Rajinder Sachar, Ms. Arnita Gupta, G.K. Bansal, P.C. Dhiman, Ms. Prabha Jain, K.G. Bhagat, Ravindra Bana, K.H. Bhagat, Ms. Kusum Choudhary, B.D. Sharma, Narottam Vyas, P.N. Puri, S.C. Khunger D and Ravi Khunger for the appearing Parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. 1. In these Civil Appeals by Special Leave, of the State of Punjab, correctness of the common judgment dated September E 16, 1982 by which Regular Second Appeals Nos. 902-913 of 1973 were dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is questioned.

2.-Facts, giving rise to these Civil Appeals lie in a narrow compass. In the District of Gurdaspur certain land-owners had permitted different brick-manufacturers to remove brick-earth from lands in their respective F estates on leases or licences granted by them. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') having come into force in the State of Punjab, the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') were also made and brought into force with effect from April 25, 1964. With the coming into force of the G provisions of the Act and the Rules in the State of Punjab, its officers took steps to prevent the said brick-manufacturers from removing the brick-earth from the lands in the estates on the strength of the leases and licences executed in their favour by the land-owners without obtaining the mining licences and paying royalty, under the Rules. The said manufacturers of bricks although removed brick-earth from the concerned lands by paying H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A royalty and obtaining licences for some years, they filed suits in civil courts of original jurisdiction to restrain by perpetual injunctions the State of Punjab and its officers from demanding payment of royalty for removal of brick-earth from o~ers' lands and insisting upon obtaining of 1nining licences or permits for the purpose. The relief of injunctions sotJght in B [those suits ][was ][b.ased ][on their claim that notwithstanding the ][fact ][that ]brick-earth was regarded as minor-mineral under the Rules, State of Punjab not being the owner of brick-earth in the concerned lands, there arose no need to p•y royalty to State for removal of such brick-earth and to obtain mining licences or permits from the State. The claim so made, having found favour with the Civil Courts of first instance, the suits were c decreed and reliefs sought for therein were granted. The First Appeals carried against such decrees by the State of Punjab before the First Appellate Courts did not meet with success. Further Regular Second Appeals carried to the High Court met with the same fate when they were dismissed by a learned single Judge of. that Court by a common j~.dgment D [dated September ][16, ][1982. ][It ][is ][that common judgment, which ][has ][become ]the subject-matter of the Punjab State's present Civil Appeals by Special Leave.

3. On behalf of the State it was contended firstly, that the courts below should not have, on the basis of entries in Wajib-ul-arz pertaining to the la'lds of the. estates of the land-owners found that the brick-earth in such lands' did not vest in the state and secondly, that the lower appellate courts when were of the view that the entires in Wajib-ul-arz, required the drawing of the presumption that the brick-earth in the concerned lands belonged to the lands' owners, they should have seen that such presump-tion was a rebuttable presumption and as such called for setting aside the decrees of the Courts of first instance, and remittal of the suits to the Courts of first instance with a direction to them to afford. an opportunity to the State to adduce rebuttal evidence. Both these contentions cannot merit our acceptance for the reasons which we shall presently state.

E

F

G

4. As some of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Revenue Act') which directly bear on the said contentions would be helpful in appreciating the merit of those contentions, they are set out at the outset. Section 31 which deals with record-of-rights re:ating to each estate comprised of the lands from where brick-earth is being H [removed by the brick-manufacturers reads: ]

~ --r· .. ~ ,-----

-\. ~ i~ ""

"

"-~.

y

-J.-

....4..

~-

(a) statements showing, so far as may be practicable- F

5. Brick-earth with which we are concerned in the present appeals, is a minor mineral was no! disputed, although it is not any of the mines or minerals covered by section 41 of the Revenue Act as would make it become the property of the State .. If the owner of such brick-earth is the State of Punjab, liability to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and G to obtain permit or licence for such removal, necessarily arises because of the operation of the Act and the Rules. But the Courts below have concur-rently found that the present appeals have arisen was in lands which formed the estates of the private owners and as such the same belonged to such land-owners. It is so found on their reading of the entries in H [Wajib-ul-arz pertaining to. the eoncerned estates. Wajib-ul-arz ][is ][a docu-]

. ....__

. """ ~

.

.. ~

. ....__

. """ ~

.

.. ~

STATE OF PUNJAB v. VISHKARMA & CO. [VENKATACHALA, J.] 767

ment included in the record-of-rights cannot be disputed since it contains A the statements on matters envisaged under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act. According to the courts below Wajib-ul-arz document being record-of-rights of estates completed after 18th day of November, 1871, an<l there being nothing expressly stated in them that the forest or quarry or land or interest in the estates belong to B the Government, the lands in such estates including brick-earth in them shall be presumed to belong to the concerned land-owners as is declared in sub-section (2) of section 42 of the R-,venue Act.

6. Again, it is pointed out by the courts that there being no provision C similar to the provision in sub-section (3) which permits adducing of rebuttal evidence against the presumption that the lands belong to the State under sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Revenue Act, the presumption whcih arises under sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Revenue Act that the forest or quarry or land or interest belong to land-owner, cannot at all be rebutted by the State by adducing any contrary evidence. Even other- D wise, according to them, when the State has not chosen to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the entries in Wajib-ul-arz document - record-of-rights relating to the estates of lands whose brick-earth is allowed by the land-owners to be removed by the brick-manufac-turers who are the plaintiffs in the suits out of which the present Civil E Appeals have arisen, there can be no valid reason for them to hold that the brick-earth in the lands of the estates concerned has become the ,property of the State, so as to require the brick-manufacturers to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and obtain permits or licences under the Rules. F

7. In our view, when all the courts below have concurrently recorded findings to the effect that the ownership of the brick-earth belong to land-owners and not to the State on a correct appreciation of all evidence adduced in the case and on a proper application of the law governing the G same, there could be no justification to interfere with such findings in these appeals. We are also not shown any valid reason as to why we should set aside the lower courts' judgments and decrees and send the matters to the Courts of first instance with a dirertion to permit the State to adduce rebuttal evidence as regards entries in record-of-rights. H

H

768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

G.N.R.

· Appeals dismissed.

-