LexAMAR JYOTI STONE CRUSTING CO. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196] The Corporalion of Calcutta v. Sm. Padma Debi Subba Rao J. G'.! SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] the history of the legislation. In the result, we hold, on a fair rlladi11g of the express provision of s.l:2i (a) nf the Act in th~ Jicrht of the decisions . 0 cons1<lercd, that the r<'ntal ndue cannot he fixed higher than the Rtanrlarcl r0nt under the Rent Control Act .. Th<' next question is, what is the meaning of the phrase "at the time nf assessment" occur- ring in s.12i(a) of the Act.. The majority view of the High Court was that as8CSfment commences with the making of the valuation under s. l:ll of the Art ancl ends with the dc,termination of the objection under s.140 thereof, anrl t.hat an event vrhirh took place during thii; period may be relied upon for assessini; the annual vahic unr!cr >d2i(a) of the Act. The correctness of this view has not seriously been contestccl before us. 'l'hat apart, for the reasons mentio11ed by Lahiri an<l Sen, J.T., thRt conulu8ion is justified on the provisions of the Act. No other question iR raisecl. The appeal fails ancl is dismissed with costB. APJieal dismisBed. A:\1AR JYOTI STONE CJH~STING CO. t'. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER::i (R. r. sn<nA, c .. J., s. K. DAs, A. K. SAHKAR, N. RAJAGOPAJ.A AYYA!S'GARandJ.R. MvDHOLKAn,J.T.) Quorry·-Refusal of permit.-01,.nership "f mf~ral•-Pr~ sumplion-I'unjab Land RP>'fnue Act, 1881 ().:~II of 1881) d. 42. The appellant had been granted a permit by the Collec: tor for quarrying stone upto June 30, 1957 under the Delhi Minor Mineral Rule& 1938 framed under s.155(1) ofthe Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1837. On the expiry of the tcrr:i of this permit the appellant applied for another permit but 1t W-' refused on the ~ound that the land ha<;! been inelu\lcc;\ .. • • ' - • • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 63 in "a controlled area" reserved for other purposes by proceed- ings under the Delhi (Control of Buildings) Act, 1955. The appellant filed a suit praying for a declaration that it had a right to quarry stones from the land in suit without a permit as the ownership of the minerals was vested in the landowner from whom it had taken the land and for a mandam'U8 to the collector to grant the permit as the 1955 Act had ceased to be operative after December 30, 1957. Held, that the appellant had not proved its title to the mineral rights in the land and was not entitled to the dec- laration. Section 4i(2) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, provided that when in any record of rights, completed after· November 18, 1871, it was not expressly mentioned that any quarry belonged to the Government it shall be presumed to belong to the landowners. In the present case neither party produced any such record of rights, and no presumption could be invoked in favour of the owner. The presumption arises only when such a record of ri~hts is before the court and flows from the contents of the document. Held, further, that the application for a permit was refused on good and relevant grounds. The subsequent repeal of the Delhi (Control of Buildings) Act, 1955, did not entitle the appellant to an order directing the issue of a permit as no other application for a permit was pending at that titne. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 26, 1960, of the Punjab High Court, (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in R. S. A. No. 123.D of 1959. N. S. Bindra, I. C. Jain and 0. P. Rana, for the Appellant. C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen and T. lfl. Sen, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Tarachand Brijmohan Lal for Respondent No. 4. ' 1961. August 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' AYYANGAR,,J.-This appeal has been filed pursuant to leave granted by this Court unqef 1961 Amar Jif,ti Stone C!'U•tlngCo. •• The Union of India Ayyangar J, 1961 A.ma,. Jyot; Stan,. Crwtiong Co. v. Tl~ Union of India Ayyangar J. 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] Art. 136 of the Constitution againgt the decision of the Punjab High Court in second appeal No. 123-D of 1959. The appellant-firm is the leHsee under a lease date<l December 21, 1955 of kasra Nos. 1621, j(j.J6, IG52, IG5il 1rn<l 1703 in Xaraina Village within the administration of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. As !Pssee the firm wa.s working certain stone-quarries in the fields which were the subject- matter of its lease. The right of pNsons to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.