STATE OF PUNJAB versus VISHKARMA AND CO: ETC.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 05-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
VISHKARMA AND CO: ETC. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1993 
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957/The Punjab 
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964-Removal of brick earth by 
briclc-Manufacturers from lands on leases or licences granted by land-
owners-Whether obtainment of permit/licence and payment of royalty are 
necessary. 
Punjab Land Revenue Ac4 1987: Sections 31, 41 and 42-Scope and 
applicability of;. Wajib-ut-a~at is. 
Respondent companies filed suits in Civil Courts for perpetual 
injuctions restraining the Appellant State from demanding payment of 
royalty for removal of brick-earth from owners' lands and insisting upon 
obtaining of requisite mining licences or permits. They based their claim 
A 
B 
c 
D 
on the premise that though the brick earth was classified as minor 
mineral under the Rules, since the State of Punjab was not the owner of E 
brick-earth in the lands concerned, no necessity arose for payment of 
royalty and for obtainment of mining licences or permits. The Civil Courts 
accepted the claim and decreed the suits, granting the reliefs prayed for. 
The Appellant State carried the matter before the First Appellate F 
Court in vain. Further Regular Second Appeals before the High Court 
~ were also dismissed by a Common Judgment, impugned herein, by way of 
Civil Appeals by Special Leave. The Appellant contended (i) that the 
Courts below went wrong in holding that the brick-earth did not vest in 
the State on the basis of entries in wajib-nl-arz pertaining to the lands of G 
the estates of the land owners; (ii) that as the presumption, drawn from 
the entries in wajib-ul-arz, to the effect that the brick earth in the lands 
'concerned belonged to the lands' owners, was only rebuttable, the decrees 
should have been set aside, remanding the suits to the courts of first 
instance with a direction to them to afford an opportunity to the State to 
adduce rebuttal evidence. 
H 
761 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the Appeals, this Court, 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. Although Brick-earth is indisputably a minor r..ineral, it 
Is not any of the mines or minerals covered by section 41 of the Revenue 
Act as would make it become the property of the State. If the owner of snch 
brick-earth is the State of, Punjab, liability to pay royalty for removal of 
such brick-earth and to obtain permit or licence for such removal, would 
necessarily arise because of the operation of the Act and the Rules. But 
the courts below have concurrently found on their reading of the entires 
in wajib-ul-arz pertaining to the estates concerned that the brick-earth 
was in lands which formed the estates of the private owners and as such 
the same belonged to such land-owners. [766G] 
2. Wazib-ul-arz document being record-of-rights of estates com-
pleted after 18th day of November 1871, and there being nothing expressly 
stated in them that the forest or quarry or land or interest in the esta!es 
belong to the Government, the lands in such estates including brick-earth 
D in them shall be presumed to belong to the concerned land-owne<s as is 
declared in sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Revenue Act. (767 A-BJ 
E 
3. The Courts have again pointed out that there being no provision 
similar to the provision in sub-section (3) which permits adducing of 
rebuttal evidence against the presumption that the lands belong to the 
State under Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the Revenue Act, the 
presumption which arises under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the 
Revenue Act that the forest or quarry or land or interest belong to 
land-owner, cannot at all.be rebutted by the State by adducing any con-
trary evidence. Even otherwise, when the State has not chosen to adduce 
F 
any evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the entires in Wajib-
ul-arz documents-record-of-rights there can be no valid reason for the 
Courts to hold that the brick-earth in the lands of the estates concerned 
has become the property of the State, so as to require the brick-manufac-
turers to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and obtain permits 
G or licences under the Rules. [767C-F] 
4. When all the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings to 
the effect that the ownership of the brick-earth belong to land-owners and· 
not to the State on a correct appreciation of all evidence adduced in the 
case and on a proper application of the la

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