LexTHREESIAMMA JACOB & ORS. versus GEOLOGIST, DPTI. OF MINING & GEOLOGY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 7 S.C.R 863
THREESIAMMA JACOB & ORS.
v.
GEOLOGIST, DPTI. OF MINING & GEOLOGY & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4540-4548 OF 2000 etc.)
JULY 8, 2013
[R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.)
LAND LAWS:
Jenmis or holders pf jenmom rights in Malabar area -
Rights with regard to minerals underneath the soil - Held:
Ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow
A
B
c
the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is
deprived of the same by some valid process -- In the instant
0
appeals, no such deprivation is brought to the notice of the
Court -- Appellants are, therefore, the proprietors of the
minerals obtaining in their lands -- The recitals in the patta
or the Collector's standing order that exploitation of mineral
wealth in the patta land would attract additional tax cannot in
E
any way indicate the ownership of State in minerals -- The
power to tax is a necessary incident of sovereign authority
(imperium) but not an incident of proprietary rights (dominium)
- Cqnstitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 294 and 297 -- Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 ..,,. JyTineral
Concession Rules, 1960 - Kera/a Minor Mineral Concession
F
Rules, 1967 - Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
-- Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 - Atomic Energy Act, 1962 -- Oilfields {Regulation and
Development) Act, 1948 - Mines and Minerals.
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High
Court claiming that they were holders of jenmom rights
in the subject lands situate in Malabar area in the State
of Kerala and the State had no legal authority to demand
G
863
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A
payment of royalties on the minerals excavated by them.
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the owners
of jenmom lands in the Malabar area were not the
proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath the
soil, and dismissed all the writ petitions. The appeals filed
B by the writ petitioners were referred by a two Judge
Bench to the three Judge Bench .
. Disposing of the appeals,
HELD: 1.1 There is positive evidence in the Board
C Standing Order No. 10 dated 19.03.1888 (BSO No.10) that
the State did not claim any proprietary right over the
mineral wealth obtaining in lands held over a ryotwari
patta or in jenmom lands in Malabar. The limited right
claimed is "to a share in the produce of the minerals
D worked, if thought necessary by government." By
necessary implication, it follows that the State recognised
the legal right of the land holder to the subsoil metals and
minerals ·whatever name such right is called - proprietary
E
or otherwise. [para 37-38] [884-B-C; 885-A; 886-A-B]
1.2 Apart from the legal implication of BSO No.10 with
respect to Malabar, from an analysis of the enactments
and the judicial pronouncements necessary inference is
that British recognized that the State had no inherent
F
right in law to be the owner of all mineral wealth in this
country. British never claimed proprietary rights over the
soil, and jenmis were recognised to be the absolute
owners of the soil. It is obvious from the BSO No.10 that
the British never claimed any propri~tary right in any land
in the Old Madras Province and, therefore, both ryotwari
G pattadars and jenmis must also be held to be the
proprietors of the subsoil rights/minerals until they are
deprived of the same by some legal process. This
conclusion with regard to subsoil/mineral rights will still
hold good even if the lands in question, as per the
H
THREESIAMMA JACOB & ORS. v. GEOLOGIST,
865
DPTI. OF MINING & GEOLOGY
judgment under appeal, have been converted to be lands A
held on ryotwari settlement, for the reason that even in
the lands held on ryotwari patta, the British did not assert
proprietary rights. [para 39] [886-C-F]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Duwuru Bafarami Reddy & . 8
Ors. 1963 SCR 173 =AIR 1963 SC 264; and Secretary of
State v. Ashtamurthi (1890) ILR 13 Mad 89 - referred to.
1.3 The Constitution of India recognized the fact that
the mineral wealth obtaining in the land mass (territory
of India) did not vest in the State in all cases; and that C
under the law, as it existed, proprietary rights in minerals
(subsoil) could vest in private parties who happen to own
the land [Arts. 294 and 297). This conclusion gets fortified
from the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960. While ChExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.