9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Haryana Act'). Under the notification of 20th February, 1974, the State Government purported to acquire rights to Saltpetre, a minor mineral in the land described in a schedule appended to the notification issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 3, sub. section (i) of the Haryana Act. By the notification of 22nd February, 1974, the State Government announced to the general public that certain saltpetre bearing areas in the State of Haryana, mentioned therein, would be auctioned on the dates given there. The notifications have not been placed before us. But, from the averments in the statements on behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents in the affidavits supporting their respective cases in proceedings for a stay of the operation of the High Court's judgment, it appears that the intention of the State was to acquire Saltpetre deposits in lands whose owners had granted mining leases claimed by petitioners in the High Court to be subsisting. The auctions advertised were probably of fresh lessee rights. Whether the auctions were to be of ownership or lessee rights in lands, the result was that one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct showed that the acquisition was to be made to protect the mineral potentialities of the land and to ensure their proper development and exploitation on scientific lines. If this was the actual purpose behind the Haryana Act it did not materially differ from that which could be said to lie behind the Central Act. The real question, however, was not whether any of the purposes of the two Acts were common but whether the provisions of the Central Act so operated as necessarily to exclude, in carrying out their objects, the operation of the State Act. The High Court had held that, in view of the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Central Act, and decisions of this Court in the Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. Ors. v. The State of Orissa Ors., State of West Bengal v. Union of India, State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch Co., and Baijnath Kedia v. The State of Bihar, the field covered by the impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central Legislation so that the State Act had to be held to be inoperative and void for repugnancy. Section 2 of the Central Act lays down: It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which a prospecting licence or mining lease or more than one licence or lease may be granted in any one State. The Central Government could make exceptions to this rule. Section 7 limits duration of a prospecting licence, which is evidently to be granted by the State Government, to one year for mica and two years for other minerals, subject to renewal, and, in the case of scheduled minerals, subject to approval by Central Government for each grant or renewal. Similarly, Section 8 provides periods of grant and renewal of leases by the State Government. Section 9 deals with Royalties in respect of mining leases. Section 9A is concerned with the Dead rent to be paid by the lessee to the State Government subject to the regulation of it by the Central Government. Sections 10 to 12 of the Central Act contain procedure for obtaining prospecting licences or mining leases in land in which mineral rights vest in the Government. It is true that it is not specified here in which Government rights to minerals in any land vest. But, the machinery provided for applications and for maintaining the registers of applications for prospecting licences and mining leases shows that it is the State G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person . Clause (2) of Section 17 provides for undertakings by the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, of prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease.... . Section 17(3) makes the Central Government liable in such cases to pay the State Government prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent, or dead rent, as the case may be, at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act, if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under a prospecting licence or mining lease. Section 17(4) contains powers of the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, to prohibit grant of prospecting or mining leases in any area specified in a notification. Section 18, dealing with the development of minerals enacts: 18(1) It shall be the duty of the Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India, and for that purpose the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make such rules as it thinks fit. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Geological Survey of India, or such other authority or agency as it may specify in this behalf, to carry out such detailed investigations for the purpose of obtaining such information as may be necessary: Provided that in the cases of prospecting licences or mining leases granted by a State Government, no such authorisation shall be made except after consultation with the State Government . The remaining clauses (2) to (6) of Section 18A deal with the consequences of the authorisation of investigation by the Central Government and matters connected therewith. The proviso to clause (6) dealing with the costs of investigation enacts:- Provided that where the State Government or other person in whom the minerals are vested or the holder of any prospecting licence or mining lease applies to the Central Government to furnish to it or him a copy of the report submitted under sub-section (5), that State Government or other person or the holder of a prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, shall bear such reasonable part of the costs of investigation as the Central Government may specify in this behalf and shall, on payment of such part of the costs of investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Act 67 of 1957 cannot be said to be reserved for the Central Government. As indicated above, there have been some very significant changes by the Central Act 56 of 1972. These seem to us to make it necessary to reconsider the effect of the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Central Act as interpreted by the decisions of this Court so far. Before outlining the provisions of Haryana Act, we may indicate the position resulting from the four decisions mentioned above relied upon by Punjab Haryana High Court. In Hingir-Rampur Coal Co's case (supra), the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952, was questioned on the ground that it authorised the State of Orissa to impose a cess on the valuation of the minerals. The State of Orissa had relied upon entries 23 and 66 of the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule. Entry 23 of List II is: Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union . And entry 66 of List II is: Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any court . The petitionin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s operation. Exercising powers under the diverse entries which have been referred to earlier, the Union Parliament could legislate so as to trench upon the rights of the State in the property vested in them. If exclusion of State property from the purview of Union legislation is regarded as implicit in those entries in List I, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Union Government to carry out its obligations in respect of matters of national importance . Learned Counsel for the appellant State before us has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal (supra) for contending that the powers of the State of Haryana to acquire land are not impaired by the declaration contained in the Central Act. He cited the rule of construction stated there as follows (at p. 393): Unless a law expressly or by necessary implication so provides, a State is not bound thereby. This well recognised rule applies to the interpretation of the Constitution. There fore, in the absence of any provision express or necessarily implying that the property of the State could be acquired by the Union, the rights claimed by the Union to legislate for acquisition of State property must be negatived. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute considered by this Court in the case from West Bengal, the field is free foe State legislation falling under the express provisions of entry 42 of List III. In State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch Co. (supra) the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 were considered by this Court directly. In this case, the legality of certain demands as fee under the Orissa Act 27 of 1952, the validity of which had been upheld by this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case (supra), came up for consideration again in the light of the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957. It was contended on behalf of the State of Orissa that the objects and purposes of the Orissa Act and of the Central Act were entirely distinct and different so that they could validly co-exist since neither trespassed into the field of the other. It was pointed out there that this Court had indicated, in the Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case (supra) that, if the declaration in the 1948 Act relied upon by the petitioner in that case had been made after our Constitution became operative, the position would have been different. Reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Act to hold (at p. 47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estates became vested in the State of Bihar under Section 19(1) of the Land Reforms Act; and, by Section 10(2) of that Act, the terms on which the lands were held on leases between the original lessors and lessees became binding on the State Government under the impugned proviso to Section 10(2), amounting to alteration of the terms of the leases executed by the original lessors, the former landlords, additional demands were made upon lessees. The State Government had also relied upon a sub-rule added to Rule 20 framed under Section 15 of the Central Act 67 of 1957. This Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the Central Act, held, relying on Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case (supra) and M. A. Tulloch Co.'s case (supra), as follows (at p. 113): The declaration is contained in s. 2 of Act 67 of 1957 and speaks of the taking and the control of the Central Government the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself. We have thus not to look outside Act 67 of 1957, to determine what is left within the competence of the State Legislature but have to work it out from the terms of that Act . After referring to what was dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry 54 of List I. The whole of the topic of minor minerals became a Union subject. The Union Parliament allowed rules to be made but that did not recreate a scope for legislation at the State level. Therefore, if the old leases were to be modified a legislative enactment by Parliament on the lines of s. 16 of Act 67 of 1957 was necessary. The place of such a law could not be taken by legislation by the State Legislature as it purported to do by enacting the second Proviso to s. 10 of the Land Reforms Act. It will further be seen that Parliament in s. 4 of the Act 67 of 1957 created an express bar although s. 4 was not applicable to minor minerals. Whether s. 4 was intended to apply to minor minerals as well or any part of it applies to minor minerals are questions we cannot consider in view of the clear declaration in s. 14 of Act 67 of 1957 that the provisions of ss. 4-13 (inclusive) do not apply. Therefore, there does not exist any prohibition such as is to be found in s. 4(1) Proviso in respect of minor minerals. Although s. 16 applies to minor minerals it only permits modification of mining leases granted before October 25, 1949. In regard to leases of minor minerals execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation shall vest absolutely in the State Government and the State Government shall, subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment or disposal of such right. (3) The right to the minerals in the land includes the right of access to land for the purpose of prospecting and working mines and for the purposes subsidiary thereto including the sinking of pits and shafts, erection of plants and machinery, construction of roads, stacking of minerals and deposits of refuse, quarrying and obtaining building and road materials, using water and taking timber and any other purpose which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining. (4) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in subsection (2) and (3) should be exercised, the Collector may, by an order in writing subject to such conditions and reservations as he may specify, delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned . Other provisions of the Haryana Act are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Legislature to legislate upon, under entry 18 of the State List (List II), legislation falling substantially under this head, read with entry 23 of the State List and entry 42 of the Concurrent List (List III), should not be invalidated unless we are compelled to do so. Thirdly, entry 54 of List I, set out above would naturally cover only those parts of the field of acquisition, in accordance with rules of interpretation indicated in State of West Bengal's case (supra), which are expressly excluded from this special field by the Central Act. Particularly, as acquisition belongs to a different head in the concurrent field, on which there is neither a Central Act for acquiring ownership of mineral deposits nor any express provision for it in Act 67 of 1957, there could be no question of the exclusion of the power of the State Legislature to pass the impugned Act. There was thus no unavoidable conflict between it and the State Act. Fourthly, the impugned Act is protected from any challenge on the ground of inadequacy of compensation or the unreasonableness of the principles contained in Section 4(1) of the Haryana Act, as the acquisition of parts of estates of former proprie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the parties, was that we should not allow a new point to be argued. We do not think that any new question was allowed by us to be raised simply because we have permitted parties to place their points of view on the same question after taking into account some changes in the Central Act. Indeed, we are bound to take judicial notice of the law as it exists after its amendment. We can only apply the law as it exists and not the law as it once was. No party could justifiably complain that it was given an additional opportunity to meet what follows from the amended law even if the effect of the amendment was not noticed earlier. We are particularly impressed by the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 as they now stand. A glance at section 16(1)(b) shows that the Central Act 67 of 1957 itself contemplates vesting of lands, which had belonged to any proprietor of an estate or tenure holder either on or after 25th October, 1949, in a State Government under a State enactment providing for the acquisition of estates or tenures in land or for agrarian reforms. The provisions lay down that mining leases granted in such land must be brought into conformity with the amended law introduced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of leasehold or licensee rights in minerals under the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957. The Haryana Act expressly states that it operates subject to the overriding provisions of Act 67 of 1957. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, in the Writ Petitions under Article 32, submits: Firstly, that the legislative competence of the State Legislature, under entry 23 of List II is subjected to entry No. 54 of List I only to the extent to which Parliament chooses to take upon itself the regulation of mines and minerals and no more. Secondly, in arriving at a decision on the extent to which Parliament has removed regulation and development of mines from State control, strict construction ought to be adopted so that, without a specific and clear declaration by Parliament, ousting the power of State Legislature to deal with vesting of land in the State Government, it should not be assumed that the legislative power of the State to acquire what is land had been taken away. Thirdly, Parliament having legislated specifically only in order to regulate the grant of mining leases and concessions, irrespective of the ownership of the lands in which mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acto terminate either lessee or licensee rights which were subsisting on the date when the Haryana Act came into force. On the other hand, section 9 of the Central Act 56 of 1972, which amended section 16 of the Principal Act (Central Act 67 of 1957), made it imperative for such lessee rights as existed in estates, (which had vested in a State Government) to be brought into conformity with the Central Act. Obviously, therefore, if there are any lessee or licensee rights of mining in minor minerals on land which were actually regulated by the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957, they will continue. Although, this is a legally correct contention, it was not shewn to us how the notification of auctions of mining rights affected any subsisting rights of any alleged lessee or licensee. The facts of no individual case were placed before us. We do not know which respondent in the appeal or which petitioner in Writ Petitions before us has any subsisting rights governed by any of the provisions of the Central Act or rules made thereunder. It has also not been shewn to us that any lessee or licensee asked the State Government to carry out any statutory or contractual obligation before h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation he had from the Senior District Industries Officer. Faridabad. (B. L. MITTAL) Director of Industries, Haryana . Some of the numbers given in the first notification correspond with the number of plots in respect of which the petitioners allege to be lease-holders. A perusal of the petitions and the counter-affidavits filed in reply on behalf of the State of Haryana shows that the only dispute between the parties relates to the vesting of ownership rights in a minor mineral in these plots. But, the petitioners have come before us as lessees and not as owners. Rights of former owners have been validity terminated by the Haryana Act. We are unable to make out, from these petitions how any lessee rights acquired by the petitioners themselves, under any law subsist or are affected by the notifications mentioned above. We proceed to record our conclusions as follows: 1. The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, is valid, as it is not, in any way, repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957, made by Parliament. Ownership rights could be and have been validity acquired by the Haryana Govt. under the Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
