STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. versus CHANAN MAL ETC.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 18-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

688 
A 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
V, 
CHANAN MAL ETC. 
March 18, 1976 
B 
[A. N, RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
A1ines and Minerals (Regulation and Developn1en1) Act, 67 of 1957-
• 
Section 16(1)(b)-Scop• of, 
Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973-J/ repugnant to the pro-
risions of Central Act. 
Mandamus-Issue of-Petitioner should first call upon the authority to dis-
C 
charge legal obligation. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
State111e11t of Objects and Reasons-When could be used in interpreta-
tion. 
f'•lew qucs!ions---JVhen COt{ld be raised. 
On the strength of entries in the (wajib-ul-arz) (village administration papers) 
of some villages the State Government considered itself to be the owner 
of saltpetre deposits. 
By a notification it declared safipetre as a minor mineral 
and auctioned the mines in accordance with the Punjab ~Iinor Minerals Con-
cessions Rules, 1964 made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals 
(Regulation and Developn1ent) Act _67 of 1957. In a writ petition the High 
Court held that, unless the mineral deposits were specifically mentioned in the 
Wajib-ul-arz _Qt a village, as having vested in the State, their ownei·ship would 
still remain vested in the {ormer proprietors according to the record of rights. 
To meet this situation, the State legislature passed the Haryana 
Minerals 
(Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973. Since the owners of the lands had haphazardly 
created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Rules, 1964, t\vo notifica-
tions were issued \Vith the object of the conservation as well as of scientific ex-
ploitation of mineral resources. By , one notification-- the State Government 
purported to acquire rights to saltpetre· in the lands and by the second 
it 
announced that certain saltpetre bearing areas would be auctioned. 
In a writ petition under J\rt. 226, the High Court held (i) that in view of 
the declaration contained in s. 2 of the Central Act the field covered by the 
impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central legislation so that the 
State Act was inoperative and void for repugnancy and quashed the two notifi-
cations; 3.nd (ii) that rights in such lands had continued to vest in the former 
owners of estates despite acquisitions of other parts of their estates. 
The respondents in the a-Qpeals containded that the declaration in s. 2 of 
the Central Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should 
take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals 
would become unwGrkable if the provisions of the State Act \Vere _permitted 
to operate. 
While the appeals were pending writ petitions were filed in this Court under 
Article 32. 
The petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have asserted 
rights as holders of mining leases granted by persons who had been entered as 
proprietors of estates in the record of rights and that the State under the 
State Act had \\-Tongly acquired the right to mineral deposits in their forn1er 
lands. 
It was contended that the effect of the State Act was only to change the 
ownership without interfering with the regulation of leasehold or licensee ·rights 
in minerals under the- Central Act. 
Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the writ petitions, 
HELD: (i) The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, is 
valid, as· it is not, 1in any way, repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and 
I 
• 
' r 
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.) 
689 
1'.Iinerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957. made by Parliament. 
A 
Ownership rigIJts could be and have been validly acquired by the State Govern-
ment under the State Act. 
[710G] 
(ii) No rights are shown by any petitioner to have been conferred upon 
him under any lease or licence executed in accordance with the provisions 
of the Central Act, but, any petitioner, either before the Hiuh Court ·or in this 
Court, who can establish any such right governed by the~ provisions of the 
Central Act 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate court. 
as may still be open to him under the law, against any such action or Govern-
ment notification as is alleged to infringe that right. [71 OHl 
(iii) Any petitioner who applied fur a' wril or unler in the natuie of 
J. 
mandamus should, in compliance with a well-known rule of·practice, ordinarily, 
first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show 
that it had refused or neglected to carry i

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