2013 (7) TMI 1024 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the owners of jenmom lands in the Malabar area 1 are the proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath the soil - In Present case, a jenmi '2 holds jenmom 3 lands as absolute owner and has proprietary rights over both the soil and subsoil. The ryotwari settlement made by the British Government in the Malabar area of the erstwhile Madras Province only obligated the jenmis to pay revenue to the State but did not in any way affect their proprietary rights in the lands. Nor did the ryotwari settlement have the effect of transferring and vesting the ownership either of the land or the subsoil (minerals) to the State. In support of this submission, the appellants heavily relied on a judgment of this Court in BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. ANR. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1972 (4) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT and also a standing order of the Board of Revenue of the erstwhile Madras HELD THAT - there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth sub- soil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership of sub- soil / mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process. In the instant appeals, no such deprivation is brought to our notice and therefore we hold that the appellants are the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in their lands. We make it clear that we are not making any declaration regarding their liability to pay royalty to the State as that issue stands referred to a larger Bench.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the owners of jenmom lands in the Malabar area are the proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath the soil.
2. Whether the State has the legal authority to demand payment of royalties on the minerals excavated by the holder of jenmom rights.
3. The legal nature of the rights over minerals in the context of ryotwari tenures and jenmom lands.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proprietorship of Soil and Subsoil Minerals in Jenmom Lands:
The primary question was whether the owners of jenmom lands in Malabar are proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath. The Kerala High Court, in its judgment, concluded that the minerals belong to the Government, rejecting the appellants' claim of proprietorship over both the soil and subsoil. The Supreme Court examined historical and legal contexts, noting that originally, jenmis in Malabar were absolute proprietors of the land and did not pay land revenue. The British annexation of Malabar did not alter this proprietary right. The Court referred to historical documents, including the standing orders of the Madras Revenue Board, which did not claim proprietary rights over minerals in jenmom lands. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that jenmom landholders retain rights over subsoil minerals.

2. State's Authority to Demand Royalties:
The appellants argued that the State has no legal authority to demand royalties on minerals excavated from jenmom lands. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the issue of the character and legal nature of royalty had been referred to a larger Bench and thus did not delve into it. However, it was noted that historically, the British Government did not claim proprietary rights over minerals in ryotwari or jenmom lands, only a share in the produce of minerals worked. The Court emphasized that the power to tax is a sovereign authority and not indicative of proprietary rights.

3. Legal Nature of Rights Over Minerals in Ryotwari Tenures:
The Supreme Court explored the legal nature of rights over minerals in ryotwari tenures, referencing historical legal texts and previous judgments. It was established that ryotwari pattadars were not considered proprietors of the land but tenants with extensive rights, including the right to sell, mortgage, or gift the land. The Court highlighted that the British Government did not assert proprietary rights over subsoil minerals in ryotwari lands, as evidenced by the Board Standing Order No. 10 of 1888, which explicitly stated that the State lays no claim to minerals in ryotwari and jenmom lands. The Court concluded that the ownership of subsoil minerals follows the ownership of the land unless explicitly deprived by law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the appellants, as jenmom landholders, are the proprietors of the minerals in their lands. The Court did not make any declaration regarding their liability to pay royalties to the State, as this issue was referred to a larger Bench. The judgment emphasized the historical and legal context, affirming that the proprietary rights over subsoil minerals remain with the landholders unless explicitly transferred to the State by law.