9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Meaning of the expression 'royalty' in Section 79(1) of the Madras District Boards Act. 2. Whether the provision imposing land cess on royalty under mining leases is repealed by the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948 or 1957. 3. Recoverability of the land cess demanded by the impugned notices as an arrear of land revenue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Meaning of the Expression 'Royalty' in Section 79(1) of the Madras District Boards Act: The first contention raised by the appellant was regarding the interpretation of the term 'royalty' in Section 79(1) of the Act. The appellant argued that 'royalty' should be confined to the rent payable for the beneficial use of the surface of the land. The court rejected this argument, stating that "royalty" in the context of Section 79(1) signifies the payment made for the materials or minerals won from the land, and not merely the surface rent. The court clarified that "royalty" represents the payment for the extracted minerals, distinguishing it from the lease amount which is already specified as a component for computing the annual rent value. 2. Repeal of the Provision Imposing Land Cess by the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Acts: The appellant contended that the provisions imposing land cess on royalty under mining leases were repealed by the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948 or the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The court examined the argument based on two decisions: Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and State of Orissa v. M. A. Tullock & Co. In these cases, the Orissa Mining Areas (Development Fund) Act was found to be repealed by the Central Acts. However, the court found no resemblance between the Orissa Act and the provisions for land cess under Sections 78 and 79 of the Madras District Boards Act. The court concluded that Sections 78 and 79 of the Act are not concerned with the development of mines and minerals but are for raising funds for local administration. Therefore, the Central Acts did not repeal the land cess provisions. 3. Recoverability of the Land Cess as an Arrear of Land Revenue: The appellant challenged the legality of recovering the land cess as an arrear of land revenue. The court noted that Section 221 of the Act, which provided for the recovery of sums due as taxes, had ceased to be applicable. However, the court referred to Section 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, which allows for the recovery of all cesses lawfully imposed upon land as arrears of land revenue. The court held that the land cess under Section 78 falls within the scope of "a cess lawfully imposed upon land," making it recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the recovery procedure. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals and the writ petition, upholding the validity of the land cess notices and the procedure for their recovery. The court ruled that the expression 'royalty' in Section 79(1) includes payments for minerals won from the land, the Central Acts did not repeal the land cess provisions, and the land cess is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The appeals and the writ petition were dismissed with costs.
|
