LexDALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 529
DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No.5329 of 2002)
DECEMBER 16, 2013
[R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
A
B
1957 - ss.3(e), 4, 9, 14 and.16- Mineral Concession Rules,
C
1960 - Chapters IV, V;;,:;d VI - Mining lease in the State of
. Tamil Nadu - Payment of royalty - Non-entitlement of a
ryotwari pattadar who secures mining lease under the 1957
Act to pay royalty at a concessional rate - Whether the State
Government has a discretion to collect royalty from any
D ·
lessee at a concessional rate, other than the one prescribed
under the Act in the absence of any specific provision under
"the Act and Rules conferring such discretion - Held: Answer
to the question depends upon the answer to 5 other questions/
issues - Pleadings in the writ petitions (culminating in the
E
present appeals) hopelessly ambiguous, bald and imprecise
to enable the Court to examine any one of the issues - But
one of the issues alreac[y referred to a larger Be.nch of the
Supreme Court, arising out of appeals from other parts of the
country - Requirement of symmetric application of law; in a
F
manner which is uniform throughout the country - Opportunity
granted to the appellants as well as the State Government to
suitably amend the pleadings in the writ petitions (which led
to the present appeals) and place the complete facts
necessary for adjudication of the questions on hand - Present
G
appeals accordingly tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-64
of 1999 etc. - The Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948- The Tamil Nadu lnam Estates (Abolition
& Conversion into Ryotwari) Act - Madras lnam Estates
529
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A
(Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - s.3(b) -
Pleadings - Inadequate pleadings.
The Government of Tamil Nadu in the Industries
Department issued a letter No. 628 dated 10.5.1982
8 addressed to the Collectors of the various districts
asking them to stop sharing 50% of the royalty and dead
rent with the patta land holders in respect of mining
leases and to collect the whole amount due as royalty and
dead rent prescribed in the Second and third Schedules
C to the Mines and Minerals {Development a·nd Regulation)
Act, 1957 in the case of land in which the minerals vested
in the Government. Pursuant to the letter, the Collectors
called upon the appellant-cement companies to remit
royalty and the dead rent at the rates prescribed under
the Mines and Minerals {Development and Regulation)
D Act, 1957. Challenging the abovementioned two
proceedings, the \ippellant-cement companies filed writ
petitions.
The writ petitions were partly allowed by the High
E Court to the extent that during the currency of the leases,
which were in force as on the date of filing of the writ
petitions, the respondents were restrained from
demanding and collecting from the appellants, royalty in
excess of 50 percent insofar as patta lands are
F concerned. The appellants as well as the State
Government were aggrieved by the above-mentioned
judgment insofar as it went against them, and therefore,
the present appeals.
Directing the present appeals to be tagged with Civil
G Appeal Nos. 4056-64 of 1999 etc, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The writ petitions which culminated in the
present appeals contained wholly bald and vague
assertions. It is in the background of such pleadings, the
H High Court embarked upon a lengthy enquiry into the
DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. v. STATE OF
531
TAMIL NADU
rights of the pattadar in the sub-soil. [Paras 3, 12] [538-
A
B; 543-B-C]
1.2. In the adjudication of matters in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
unfortunately a system of paying minimum attention, (to
employ a mild expression of disapproval) has developed
over a period of time. When a number of matters are
(allegedly similar in nature) clubbed together for
adjudication, the problem gets compounded. [Para 13]
[543-D]
1.3. The assertion by Dalmia Cement that it is a
ryotwari pattadar itself is a doubtful statement of fact. An
enquiry whether such a pattadar is entitled to the sub-soil
rights was wholly uncalled for as there is not even a
single sentence in the entire writ petition whereby Dalmia
Cement asserted that the sub-soil rights vest in them.
[Para 21] [548-B-C]
1.4. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.