PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 03-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 347 
PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNE 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10717 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 03, 2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: s.48(7) -
Imposition of penalty - Whether the ·excavation activity even 
B 
for the purposes of laying foundation of the building would C 
attract rigours of s.48(7) of the Code - Held: Ordinary earth 
has been brought within the fold of a Minor Mineral by 
Notification of 3.2.2000 issued u/s.3(e) of the Act of 1957 -
In terms of the said Notification, "ordinary earth" used for filling 
or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, 
D 
railways, buildings is deemed to be a minor mineral - An 
excavation undertaken to lay the foundation of a building 
would not, ordinarily, carry the intention to use the excavated 
earth for the purpose of filling up or levelling - In the instant 
appeals, excavation of ordinary earth was undertaken by the 
E 
appellants· either for laying foundation of buildings or for the 
purpose of widening of the channel to bring cldequate quantity 
of sea water for the purpose of cooling the nuclear plant - The 
construction of buildings was in terms of a sanctioned 
development plan under the MRTP Act whereas the 
F 
excavation/widening of the channel to bring sea water was in 
· furtherance of the object of the grant of the land in favour of 
the Nuclear Power Corporation - Penalty not leviable -
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - s.31 
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulati0n) Act, 
1957- s.3(e) - Notification dated 3.2.2000 issued under 1957 G 
Act - Maharashtra Land Revenue (Restriction on Use of 
Land) Rules, 1968 - r.6. 
· 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. . 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The .quintessence of Section 48(7) of the 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is extraction/ 
removal of any mineral vested in the State without lawful 
8 
authority or without a lawful assignment by the State. 
What is a mineral is not defined either under the MRTP 
Act or the Code. The said expression is, however, defined 
by Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and Section 3(a) 
read with Section 3(e) of the Act of 1957. As mining 
activities and operations are regulated by the provisions 
C of the Act of 1957, it is the definition contained in the said 
Act which will be more relevant for the present. Ordinary 
earth has been brought within the fold of a Minor Mineral 
by Notification of 3.2.2000 issued under Section 3(e) of 
the Act of 1957. In terms of said Notification, "ordinary 
D earth" used for filling or levelling purposes in 
construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings 
is deemed to be a minor mineral. In these appeals, 
excavation of ordinary earth had been undertaken by the 
appellants either for laying foundation of buildings or for 
E the purpose of widening of the channel to bring adequate 
quantity of sea water for the purpose of cooling the 
nuclear plant. The construction of buildings is in terms 
of a sanctioned development plan under the MRTP Act 
whereas the excavation/widening of the channel to bring 
F 
sea water is in furtherance of the object of the grant of 
the land in favour of the Nuclear Power Corporation. 
Unless the excavation undertaken by the appellant-
builders is for any of the purposes contemplated by the 
Notification dated 3.2.2000 the liability of such builders to 
G penalty under Section 48(7) of the Code would be in 
serious doubt. [Paras 10-14] [355-B-D; 356-B-F; 357-C] 
2. Though Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 which 
defines 'Mine' and the expression "mining operations" 
appearing in Section 3(d) of the Act of 1957 may 
H 
PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIA110N OF PUNE 349 
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
contemplate a somewhat elaborate process of extraction A 
of a mineral, in view of the Notification dated 3.2.2000, 
insofar as ordinary earth is concerned, a simple process 
of excavation may also amount to a mining operation in 
any given situation. However, the operation of the said 
Notification has an inbuilt restriction. It is ordinary earth B 
used only for the purposes enumerated therein, namely, 
filling or levelling purposes in construction of an 
embankment, road, railways and buildings which alone 
is a minor mineral. Excavati.on of ordinary earth for uses 
not contemplated in the said Notification, therefore, would c 
not amount to a min

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