BAIJNATH KEDIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 28-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAIJNATH KEDIA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
August 28, 1969 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, 
V. BHARGAVA, 
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
ConsrUution of India, 1950, Seventh Schedule List I, Entry 54, List // 
Entry 23-Governmenr of India Act, 1935, Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 
36, List JI Entry 23-Power to legislate as to mines and minerals-State's 
power is subject to Centre's power-Bihar Legislature had no jurisdiction 
to enact 2nd proviso to s. 10(2) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950-Field 
already covered by s. 15 of the Mines and Minerals 
(Regulation and 
Development) Act 61 of 1951-Rule 20(2) of Bihar Minor Minerals 
Concession Rules, 1964 invalid for Jack of legislative support. 
Entry 54 of the Union List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitu-
tion confers power for the regulation of _mines and mineral development 
to the extent to which such regulation and development under the con-
trol of the union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the 
public interest. The corresponding entry in the Federal Li•! I under the 
Government of India Act, 1935 was entry 36 which besides mines and 
mine-ral developme'Ot dealt with oilfields also. 
Entry 23 of Li•t II df the 
· Con~titution $Z:ives power for regulation of mines and mineral 
develop~ 
ment to the Stales subject to entry 54 of List I. The corresponding entry 
un~er the Government of India Act was entry 23 of List JI. 
The Central Assembly in exercise of its power under entry 36 of List 
I in the Government df India Act enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regu-
lation and Development) Act 53 of 1948 which dealt with mines, mineraI 
development as well as oilfields. 
Rule 4 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 
1948 made under the Act which 
came int<' force on October 25, 1949 
gave power to the State Government to frame rules for the regulation and' 
development of 'minor minerals' as defined in the Rules. 
In 1957 Parlia-
ment passed the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Acr 
67 of 1957. The .Act of 1948 was adapted to deal with oilfields and gas 
only. 
In Act 67 o'f 1957 the provisions relating to regulation of mines in· 
ss. 4 t0 13 were bys. 14 made inapplicable to 'minor minerals' as defined· 
in the Act. 
Rules relating to minor minerals were 
under s. 
15 to 
be 
made hy State Governments and till such rules were made any rules 
in 
force at the commencement of the Act were to continue. 
The aopellant purchased in 1963 a lease for quarrying mifior minerals 
as defined in Act 67 of 1957 from a vendor who had taken the original 
lease from the then landlords in 1955. When under ' 10(1) of the 
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the t;ghts of the intermediary landlord 
vested in the State of Bihar the said State became lessor of the appellant's 
lease. 
The lease was confirmed on behalf of the State and rent unde'f the 
terms of the original lease was paid by the appellant up to September 1965. 
The Bihar Government had not framed any rules relating to minor mine~ 
rals under Act 53 of 1948 but it framed the Bihar Minc>r Minernl Con-
tession Rules, 1964 under s. 15 <>f the Act 67 of 1957. Also in 1964 thr 
Bihar Legislature amended s. 10(2) of the Reforms Act. A second pr~ 
>iso was added to sub-<:!. (2) whereby the terms and conditions of an< 
iubsisting leases of minor minerals would be substituted by the terms and 
B 
c 
D 
E 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BAIJNATH v. BIHAR STATE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
101 
conditions laid down in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules to the 
extent tllat the former were inconsistent with the latter. Rule 20 of the 
said Bihar Rules as originally framed provided for realisation of dead rent, 
ro1alty and surface rent in respect o'f leases granted or renewed. In terms 
tl1e rule was prospective only. 
But in December 1964 it was amended 
by the addition of a seccind sub-rule according to which the provisions as 
to dead. rent etc. would also apply to leases granted or renewed prior to 
the date of the commencement of the Act and 
subsisting on such 
date. On the strength of the amended s. 
10(2) of the Reforms Act 
and the amended r. 20 the Bihar Government demanded from the appel-
lant, dead rent, royalty and surface rent contrary to the terms of his lease. 
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court. Dissatisfi-
ed with the judgment of that court the appellant came to this Court. It 
was contended on behalf of the appellant: (i) that the subject of regula-
tion of mines

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.