BHAGWAN DASS versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 24-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
) 
l 
r 
' 
869 
BHAGW AN DASS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
March 24, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 61, 1957 S. 3(e) r/w 
Rule 2(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Mines Minerals (Concession) Rules. 196' 
and Rule 6(a) (i) and 6(a)(ii) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act I of 1951-Scope of-Riparian owners do not have any title or 
A 
B 
right over the "sand, graviel,, bajris etc.'' carried and depositi~d on their landi 
due to the fiuvial action of the river, superior to that of the State, the rightful 
owners-Minerals need not be subterranean. 
Practice-Art. 136 of the Consti-
tution-Arguments not advanced in cdurts below, will 1101 be accedt•d to in this 
C 
Court. 
The Mining and Minerals Departments of the State of U.P. have been sell-
ing by auction from 1965 onwards as "minor minerals" the deposits left on the 
surface of the appellant's lands, of the sand, gravel, bajris etc. due to the 
:fluvial action of the receding floods of the Jamuna river. In 1970, the appel-
lants objected to the proposed auction laying claim to the deposits, contending 
that since he is a riparian owner of the lands or is otherwise entitled to an 
unrestricted user of the lands, he would be entitled to appropriate the deposits, 
D 
to the exclusion of others. Since his objection was not accepted, the appell-
ant challenged the order by a writ petition under Article 226 in the Allahabarl 
High ·court which was dismissed foUowing its earlier decision in ''Sultan and 
Anr. v. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ No. 826817! dated 28-!'-73) to the 
effect that the sand, gravel, boulders, bajris etc. deposited on lands abutting 
on rivers, as a result of fluvial action of a river vest in the State Government". 
The appeal to the Division Bench was also dismissed. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court 
E 
HELD : (i) The contention that some ot the lands being still zamindari 
lands, the right to mines and minerals which the zamindars originally had did 
not cease and, therefore, the Government had no right to the mines and minerals 
on such lands. cannot be acceded to, since no such argument whatsoever was 
made in the High Court either before the single iudge or before the Division 
Bench, though there was an averment to that effect in the Writ petition. 
The 
co'ntention in regard to a part of the property raises at best a dispute between 
the Zamindari and the Government which the appellant has no right to raise. 
F 
It is for the zamindars, if so advised, to take an appropriate proceeding for 
recognition of their claims as against the Government. The appellant cannot 
be heard to say in a Writ Petition filed for the assertion of his own im.Iivkhhll 
rights that the action of the Government is calculated to prejudice somebody 
else's rights and should therefore be struck down [871 G.H, 872 A-CJ 
(2) The deposits in the nature of ordinary sand other than sand used for 
prescribed purposes, gravel, building stores and bajri squarely fall within the 
provision of s. 3 ( e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development l 
Act 67 of 1957 and the rules 2(5). 2(7) and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor 
Mineral (Concession) Rules. 1963 and are. therefore. 'minor minerals'. In 
equity, prior to the point of time when the flood waters of the river carried 
the sand and gravel to private lands, the title thereto was vested in the state 
Governm:nt. . The riyers, the river beds and the sand, bairis and building 
stones lytng in the rtver water are of state ownership. Nature carries these 
deposits to lands abutting on rivers and what the Act and Rules orovide for 
is to enable the Government to reclaim what is lost without anv fault of it"l 
own. The sand and gravel deposits left by the receding waters of the river 
are truly a part of the soil of the river bed and therefore belong to the State. 
The fluvial action of the river carries them to riparian lands but such shifting 
cannot erase the title of the rightful owner. 
[872 H, 873 A, c to G] 
· 
G 
H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 s.c.R. I
A 
Sultan and Anr. v. The State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8268/ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
71 decided on 28-9-73) [approved]; Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd Edn. Yul, 
39 p. 559 para 775 [quoted with approval]. 
(3) In the instant case, the minor minerals while wider the the river water 
"'-, 
t-
belonged to the State and the Statute 

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