KING PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 08-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KING PAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Tenancy and land laws : 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, 1950: Sections 4, 
6, 7 and 107. 
Intermediaries-Rights of-To work mines in their estates-Held: 
extinguished and vested in the State Government. 
A 
B 
c 
Section 107(2) proviso-Mining Lease-Terms and conditions a/-
Power to regulate-Conferred on State-Under S. 1 5 of MMRD Act-Held: D 
extended to extinguish or prohibit rights of intermediaries-'Regulation' 
included 'Prohibition '-Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) 
Act, 1957, S.15. 
Section 107(2)-Mining Lease-Terms and conditions of-Laid down 
by Mines Tribunal for intermediaries-Held: effective from date of vesting E 
and not from date on which parties agreed to execute lease. 
Mines and Minerals-Dead Rent-Levy of-No evidence produced 
regarding quality or quantity of minerals removed during period in 
question-Held: In the circumstances levy of dead rent at maximum rate F 
was proper-Dead rent not payable with regard to quantity of mineral won 
over. 
Words and Phrases : 
"For the time being in force"-Meaning of-In the context of S.107 
(2) proviso of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1951. 
"Regulation"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.15 of the Mines and 
G 
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 
H 
619 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants land stood transferred to and vested in the State 
free from all encumbrances vide Sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. in the light of the aforesaid 
provisions the Collector issued notices to the appellants stating that 
they sltould stop mining as they had lost all rights in the mines and 
minerals. The High Court, however, directed the respondents to 
''B consider the applications of the appellants for grant of lease under 
Sections 106-108 of the Act. 
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the respondents 
sent drafts of mining lease containing details of terms and conditions 
in accordance with U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1967 and 
C the Rules framed under the M·ines and Minerals (Regulation and 
Development) Act, 1957. The appellants raised objections regarding · 
certain terms and conditions contained in the proposed leases. The 
differences were referred for adjudication to the Mines Tribunal 
appointed under Section l1 O of the Act. The Tribunal negative all the 
claims of the appellants: The High Court dismissed the writ petition 
D filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the 
present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that under Section 
7 of the Act the rights of the appellants to work the mines would 
E continue and such rights did not cease and vest in the State though 
the titles to the land had gone to the State; that the rights to work the 
mines were governed by Chapter VI of the Act only; that the phrase 
"for the time being in force" occurring in the proviso to Section 107(1) 
of the Act showed that inasmuch as there was no central enactment 
laying down any provision regulating the operation of mines in respect 
F of minor minerals on the date when the Act came into force, the 
subsequent enactments either Central or State could not restrict the 
rights of the appellants by fixing the period in the terms and conditions 
of the proposed leases; that the Rules were only prospective and could 
not bind the appellants; that the 'Regulation' contemplated under 
G Section 15 of the Central Act could not amount to 'prohibition' or 
extinguishment of the rights of the appellants; that the terms and 
conditions mentioned in the proposed mining lease could not be from 
the date of vesting and it must be from the date on which the parties 
agreed to execute the lease; and that the payment of dead rent must 
relate to the probable value of the minerals extracted and not with 
H reference to area. 
KING PAL SINGH v. STATEOFU.P. 
621 
On behalfofthe respondents it was contended that in the absence A 
of records regarding the quality or quantity of the minerals extracted 
the authorities had to levy the dead rent at the maximum rate with 
reference to area. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. In view of the consequences of vesting of the estate 
pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land reforms Act, 1957 and the clea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.