2017 (7) TMI 1286 - HC - Indian Laws

Imposition of Royalty and penalty for the illegal excavation of earth - Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Held that - The order of the Tahsildar cannot be sustained. Ordinary earth was not included within the definition of the term minor mineral till it was brought within the fold of the said term by the notification, dated 03.02.2000 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. It is apparent from a reading of the notification of the Central Government dated 03.02.2000 that ordinary earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings, etc. is to be considered as a minor mineral in addition to the minerals already declared as such, under the provisions of Section 3(e) of the Act. The notification dated 03.02.2000 only includes the ordinary earth used for the purposes mentioned in the notification to be a minor mineral and the ordinary earth that is used for any purpose other than the ones mentioned in the notification is not to be considered as a minor mineral. It is not the case of the respondent-Tahsildar or the State Government that the petitioner had utilized the earth for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings, etc. It is apparent from the impugned order that the Tahsildar has not imposed the penalty on the petitioner for excavating any mineral other than the earth and the same is passed due to the excavation of the earth to the extent of 144318 Brass. Since the earth excavated by the petitioner cannot be brought within the fold of the term minor mineral , the Tahsildar could not have passed the impugned order under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as it could not be said that the petitioner had excavated minor mineral without seeking the requisite permission. The impugned order of the Tahsildar is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing payment of royalty and penalty for illegal excavation of earth under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tahsildar directing payment of royalty and penalty for illegal excavation of earth under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioner, awarded a construction contract for a Thermal Power Project, excavated earth for laying the foundation of structures. The excavated earth was utilized in the project, and pits were refilled. The Tahsildar imposed royalty and penalty, leading to the challenge in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner argued that ordinary earth used for filling pits during construction cannot be considered a 'minor mineral' under the law. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner contended that the earth excavated and utilized within the construction site does not fall under the definition of 'minor mineral.' The Central Government's notification dated 03.02.2000 specified that earth used for specific purposes like filling or levelling in construction projects is considered a minor mineral, which was not the case in the present scenario.

3. The Assistant Government Pleader supported the Tahsildar's order, stating that since the petitioner excavated earth without permission, they are liable for royalty and penalty. However, it was acknowledged that the excavated earth was indeed used for refilling the pits within the construction site. The court analyzed the Supreme Court judgment, which emphasized that the end use of excavated earth determines its classification as a 'minor mineral.' In this case, as the earth was utilized within the construction site, it did not qualify as a 'minor mineral.'

4. The court referred to the Central Government's notification, which specified that only earth used for specific purposes in construction projects is considered a minor mineral. As the excavated earth was reused within the construction site, it did not meet the criteria for being classified as a 'minor mineral.' Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Tahsildar's order and ruling in favor of the petitioner.

5. The judgment highlighted that the Tahsildar's order was not sustainable as the excavated earth, used within the construction site for refilling pits, did not fall under the definition of 'minor mineral.' Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tahsildar's order and ruling in favor of the petitioner.