1976 (3) TMI 233 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence of the Haryana Act
2. Repugnancy with Central Legislation
3. Adequacy of Compensation under Article 31(2)
4. Validity of Notifications under the Haryana Act
5. Rights of Lessees and Licensees under the Central Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of the Haryana Act:
The petitioners contended that the Haryana Act was beyond the competence of the State Legislature as the field was already occupied by the Central Act enacted under Entry 54 of the Union List. The Supreme Court noted that the Haryana Act aimed to vest mineral rights in the State Government and provide for compensation to owners. The Court found that the Haryana Act was framed to address the situation following a High Court decision, which held that mineral rights remained with former proprietors unless specifically vested in the State. The Haryana Act was thus a logical corollary of land reforms and did not conflict with the Central Act.

2. Repugnancy with Central Legislation:
The High Court had declared the Haryana Act ultra vires, holding that the field was fully occupied by the Central Act. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Central Act, particularly Sections 16 and 17, which contemplate State legislation for vesting lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government. The Court concluded that the Haryana Act did not trench upon the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 18 of List II, read with Entry 42 of List III. The Haryana Act operated in a distinct field of acquisition of property, separate from the regulation and development of mines under the Central Act.

3. Adequacy of Compensation under Article 31(2):
The High Court found the compensation provided by the Haryana Act to be grossly low and illusory. However, the Supreme Court noted that the acquisition of parts of estates of former proprietors of land falls under Article 31A, which protects the Haryana Act from challenges on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. The Court observed that the Haryana Act expressly states that it operates subject to the overriding provisions of the Central Act.

4. Validity of Notifications under the Haryana Act:
The notifications dated 20th and 22nd February 1974, issued under the Haryana Act, were challenged for being void. The Supreme Court found that the notifications aimed to acquire rights to Saltpetre deposits and auction them. The Court noted that the Haryana Act did not and could not ipso facto terminate lessee or licensee rights subsisting under the Central Act. The Court found no evidence that any lessee or licensee rights were affected by the notifications, as the petitioners failed to show how their subsisting rights under the Central Act were infringed.

5. Rights of Lessees and Licensees under the Central Act:
The petitioners asserted rights as lessees of minor minerals under registered leases executed by the owners. The Supreme Court held that lessee and licensee rights governed by the Central Act or rules made thereunder were not covered by the Haryana Act. The Court emphasized that the Haryana Act operates subject to the provisions of the Central Act. However, the petitioners failed to establish any subsisting lessee or licensee rights governed by the Central Act, and no individual case facts were placed before the Court to show infringement of such rights.

Conclusion:
1. The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, is valid and not repugnant to the Central Act 67 of 1957. Ownership rights were validly acquired by the Haryana Government under the Haryana Act.
2. No petitioner showed any rights conferred under leases or licenses executed in accordance with the Central Act 67 of 1957. Petitioners may take appropriate legal proceedings if they can establish such rights.
3. Petitioners should ordinarily call upon the concerned authority to discharge its legal obligation before applying for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus.
4. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions, with parties bearing their own costs.