STAT.E OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus DUVVURU BALARAMI REDDY

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 02-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS 
173 
of jurisdiction and the order of assessment passed 
in those proceedings cannot be held to be without 
jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impe<tehing them 
on the ground that s. lU { l) had not been followed. 
This must a fortiori be so when the appeJJant hits 
itself submitted to jurisdiction and made a return. 
We accordingly agree with the learned Judges that 
even if the registration of the appellant as a 
dealer under s. 8 is bad that has no effect on the 
validity of the proceedings taken against it under 
the Act and the assessment of tax made thereunder. 
We should add that s. ~l of the Act bare tho 
jurisdiction of Ci vii Courts to entertain suits ea.Hing 
in question any orders passed by tho authr)rities 
under the Act, and in the view which we have t<1ken 
it is unnecessary to gn into the question \Vhether 
in view of this section 
the preacnt 
:-;uit 
is 
maintainable. 
There are no merits whatsoever in this appeal 
and it is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal d-isniis.w?A.1. 
STAT.E OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
DUVVURU BALARAMI R~DDY 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J;, P. B. GAJENDRAG.\DKAR, K. N. 
W.ANCHOO, N. RA.JGOPALA AY\'ANGAR, and 
T, L. V1mKATARAIHA ArY.-\R, JJ.) 
Subsoil Right-Shrotriem inam-W hen includes sub-soil 
rights. 
The respondents has obtained leases for mining mir::a 
from the owners of a certain 8ltrolri'.em village for one year with 
a stipulation that the lessors were bound to renew the !cases for 
such periods as may be desired by the lessees. 
Shortly, there-
after, the village waseanoifie.d and the estate of the owners 
wns resumed by the pptllant. The respondent conten<led tha~ 
1!162 
Central l'1•Utrics 
Ltd. 
v. 
Si.ate of M al:oro!hlra 
Afyar J. 
1962 
April 2. 
1962 
Slolt •f 
Andhra Praths1t 
v. 
D uvvuru Balaf'ami 
Redh 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
the appellant was bound to renew the leases. The appellant 
contended that the shrotriemdars had no right in the minerals, 
that they con]d not have granted any leases for mining the 
n1inerals a11d that as such no question of renewing the leases 
arose. 
JI cld, that sltrotriemdara had no rights in the minerals 
and the leases granted by them to the respondent had no legal 
effect. 
The mere fact that a person was the holder of an 
inam grant was not by itself enough to establish that the inam 
grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to 
surface rights. The grant of sub-soil r;ghts depended upon 
the language used in the grant ; if there were no words in the 
grant fr· m which grant of sub-soil rights could be properly 
inferred it would only convey ·surface rights to the grantee. 
'fhe original grant in the present case was not available and 
the inam .'air register did not show that the grant included 
the grant of sub-soil rights. No inference could he drawn of 
the grant of sub-soil rights from the fact that the inam grant 
iucludcd poramboke l unculturable land) also. The difficulty 
that may arise in the woking of the mines on account of the 
mines vesting in the state and the surface rights vesting in the 
shrotriPmdars could not make the shrotriemdar8 co-sharers in the 
sub-soil rights so as to entitle them to grant leases of the sub-
soil rights. 
Secretary of State for India in Council v. Srinivasa Ohariar, 
( 1920) L. R. 48 I. A. 56, applied. 
Secretary of State v. Krishna Rao, (I 945) L. R. 72 I. A. 
211, dis!inguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusDICTION: Civil Appeal 
Nos. 252 and 253 of 1958. 
Appeals by Certificate and speoial·leave from 
the judgment and order dated August 5, 1955, of 
the former Andhra High Court in Writ Appeal No. 
13 of 1955. 
AND 
VICE VERSA 
D. Narsaraju, Advocate General for the State of 
AnilhraPradesh, D. Parsanna Kumari, T. V. R. Tata-
chari and P. D. Menon, for the appellant (In C. A. 
No. 252 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 (Jn C. A. No, 
~53 of 58). 
· 
\ 
1 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
175 
P. Ram Reildy, for the the appellants (In C. A. 
No. 253 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 to 3 (In C. A. 
No. 252 of 58). 
A. V. V ishwanatha Sastri and J(. R. Ohoudhri, 
for the respondent No. 2 {In C. A. No. 253 of 58). 
1962. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by. 
· 
WANCHOO, J.-These are 'two connected appeals 
arising out of the same judgment of the Andhra. 
Pradesh High Court. The main appeal No. 252 is 
by the State of Andhra Pradesh while the other ap-
peal No. 253 is by Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and 
others. We shall dispose of them by this, commo

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