Kerala High Court
Siddique Areekkan vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36843 OF 2015
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHOK GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.C.J.VARKEY,ALAKKATHIL HOUSE,
PERUVANNAMUZHI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA
2 KURIAKOSE JOSE
S/O.JOHN JOSEPH,PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBANODA P.O,
PERUVANNAMUZHI(VIA),KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
KESAVADASAPUPRAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 004.
3 THE GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINIPNG AND GEOLOGY,DISTRICT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, KLOZHIKODE,PIN 673 020.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:2:-
BY ADV SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).254/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 254 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUNBOKKIL, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O. ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:4:-
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14425 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SIDDIQUE AREEKKAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, AREEKKAN HOUSE , EDAKKA PARAMBU,
KANNAMANGALA. P. O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
OFFICE,MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.S.KANNAN
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:6:-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15037 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUMBOKKIL, KARMAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:8:-
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:9:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15986 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUMBOKKIL, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI., PIN - 676121
2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:10:-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:11:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11397 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SAINUL ABDEEN
AGED 50 YEARS
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SAIDU MOHAMMED RAWTHER, KAMBRATH
CHALLA, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD- 678 507
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SRI.AMAL KASHA
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES (A)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD- 678 001
3 VILLAE OFFICER
MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE-1, PALAKKAD- 678 507
4 GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD- 678 001
BY ADVS. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASWIN
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:12:-
SETHUMADHAVAN
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:13:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38526 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
TUTU JOSE
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O JOSE, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
ALAKODE P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670571
BY ADVS.
SRI.KRISHNA DAS
SMT.M.M.GRACY
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND
GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:14:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10670 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUJIT,
AGED 39 YEARS
PATHIYIL HOUSE, THOTTSSERIYARA, KANNAMANGALAM POST,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676305
BY ADV SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
MINING & GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS. SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:15:-
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:16:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43302 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL SAMAD,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K., EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI,
KOTTASSERI PURAYA, KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PINCODE-, PIN - 676304
2 ABDUL NAZAR EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K., KOTTASSERI, KOTTASSERI PURAYA,
KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
676304
3 ABDUL HAMEED
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K. , EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI,
KOTTASSERI PURAYA, KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676304
4 MARIYUMMA
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, MOOCHIKKADAN PAIKKATT HOUSE,
KOTTAPARAMBU, PARAPPUR, IRINGALLUR, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:17:-
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ,
MINING & GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
SRI.S.KANNAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:18:-
C.R
J U D G M E N T
[WP(C) Nos.36843/2015, 254/2024, 14425/2023, 15037/2023, 15986/2023, 11397/2017, 38526/2023, 10670/2024, 43302/2024] Prelude Kerala State, often referred to as "God's Own Country," is rich in various mineral resources, including minor minerals. The State has a wide range of mineral deposits, making it a significant contributor to India's mineral wealth. Besides the former Malabar province, the rights over mineral wealth beneath the land across Kerala are owned by the State and are governed by the Travancore Proclamation, 1881, and the Cochin Proclamation, 1905, respectively. The question whether minerals lying beneath the soil in the former Malabar province belong to the State or the landowners with Jenm rights was considered by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on reference in Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology1. The reference was answered 1 (AIR 2000 Ker 300) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:19:- by holding that the minerals beneath the soil belong to the State, and royalty must be paid to the Government for quarrying leases. In appeal, the Supreme Court 2 reversed the Kerala High Court's judgment and declared that the ownership of the subsoil/mineral wealth of the land, comprised in the former Malabar province, rests with the respective owners/jenmis and not with the State. However, the Supreme Court refused to express its opinion regarding the liability of the property owners to pay royalty to the State, as that issue had been referred to a Larger Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India 3 . The Court's declaration was based on the finding that there was no legislation that vests mineral rights or subsoil rights in the State, and the ownership of such subsoil or mineral wealth would normally follow the ownership of the land. It paved the way for the enactment of the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 (for short, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021), which vests all rights in the minerals within the soil and subsoil of all lands of any ownership and tenure in the Government. During the pendency of these writ 2 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725] 3 (2011) 4 SCC 450 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:20:- petitions, the nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 4 declared that royalty is not a tax and that it is the private owner who is entitled to collect royalty when he is the owner. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are aggrieved by the demand of royalty and cost of the minerals made by the State towards the extraction of minor minerals from their respective properties under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 (for short, MMDR Act, 1957) and Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, KMMC Rules, 2015) Brief Facts and Rival Contentions
2. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 14425/23, 15037/23, 10670/24, and 43302/24 operated quarries on properties owned by them, located in the former Malabar province. Following the enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, they received a demand notice for the payment of royalty, mineral costs, and fine, alleging that they had unlawfully quarried granite from their properties. According to the petitioners, the authority of the State 4 Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:21:- to collect the royalty depends on the vesting of minerals in the State. They challenge the constitutional validity of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which vests ownership of the subsoil and mineral wealth of the land within the former Malabar province in the State, primarily on the ground that it violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India, since it does not compensate mineral owners upon vesting these rights in the State. They contend that if the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is found to be unconstitutional, they are not liable to pay royalty for minerals extracted from their own land, referring to the Supreme Court's declaration in Thressiamma Jacob 5 that minerals in the Malabar area do not belong to the State, but to the surface owner. Furthermore, they contend that neither the MMDR Act, 1957, nor the KMMC Rules, 2015, contain provisions requiring permission for self-extraction of minerals from one's own land; therefore, the respondent State cannot claim the cost of the extracted minerals or fine on the ground that the extraction was unauthorised or 5 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:22:- illegal.
3. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 38526/2023 developed his land situated in the former Malabar province by excavating and removing earth to establish a petroleum retail outlet. The second respondent/Geologist issued Ext. P11 Assessment Order under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, and the KMMC Rules, 2015, stating that the petitioner had unlawfully and without authorisation extracted granites from his property and directing him to pay the value of the minerals, royalty, and fine. According to the petitioner, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which served as the basis for Ext. P11 is unconstitutional. He disputes the constitutional validity of that Act on the ground that it not only lacks provisions to compensate property owners when mineral rights vest with the State but also exceeds the legislative competence of the State. Additionally, it is alleged that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is repugnant to the central legislation, such as the MMDR Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). The petitioner further asserts that development activities WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:23:- undertaken on his own land should not be classified as mining operations subject to royalties and other charges under the KMMC Rules, 2015. He also contends that as the land is located in the former Malabar province, the collection of royalty cannot be justified, even if the activity were of a commercial nature, in accordance with the legal pronouncements by the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob6.
4. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 15037/23, independent of the challenge to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 has filed two additional writ petitions - WP(C) Nos.15986/23 and 254/24. Apart from the quarry, he operated a crusher unit on another property that belonged to him. In WP(C) No. 15986/23, he challenges the action of respondents 1 and 2 (Geologist and Director of Mining and Geology) in not permitting him to remove and sell the granite metals crushed in his crusher, despite having paid royalty twice:
once from the supplier of the granite under Rule 7 of KMMC Rules, 2015, and again from himself as the owner of the crusher unit 6 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:24:- under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. He asserts that he paid royalty under Rule 89 to avoid harassment, even though he believed that the collection was illegal. Incidentally, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, claiming it violates Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and exceeds the delegated legislative authority under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. He also seeks the recovery of the royalty collected under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. In WP(C) No. 254/24, the petitioner challenges the action of the Department of Mining and Geology/respondents in refusing to issue the E-Pass under Rule 26(6) of the Kerala (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (for short, the Transportation Rules, 2015), enabling him to remove the granite materials stored in his crusher unit, despite the department having collected licence fee from him and issued a dealer licence.
5. The challenge in WP(C) Nos. 36843/15 and 11397/17 concerns the demand for royalty and the cost of minerals made by the State before the enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:25:- in relation to the extraction of minor minerals from their respective properties situated in the former Malabar province under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and KMMC Rules, 2015.
6. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 36843/15 operated a granite quarry in the properties owned by them, located in the former Malabar province. The 3rd respondent/Geologist issued Exts. P2 and P3 demand notices to the petitioners for the payment of royalty and mineral costs, alleging that they had unlawfully quarried granite from their properties. According to the petitioners, the right to claim royalty vests with the owner, and based on the Supreme Court's declaration in Thressiamma Jacob7 that minerals in the Malabar area belong to the surface owner, they are owners of the minerals and therefore the State cannot demand royalty from them. Besides challenging Exts.P2 and P3 on that ground, the petitioners seek to strike down Rules 11 and 49 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, to the extent that they provide for payment of royalty for granites quarried from private properties.
7. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 11397/17 owns a brick 7 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:26:- manufacturing unit. He extracted earth from his property to manufacture bricks. The 4th respondent/Geologist issued Ext. P5 order under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, and the KMMC Rules, 2015, stating that the petitioner had conducted illegal quarrying of clay from his property without obtaining any valid permit from the competent authority and directing him to pay the royalty and the cost of the bricks manufactured using the extracted clay. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5 order mainly on the ground that he, being an owner of land in the Malabar area, is not required to take any permit or pay royalty in connection with the mining activities on the land. He seeks the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob8. According to him, there is no provision in KMMC Rules, 2015, which enjoins owners of land in the Malabar area, who are also owners of subsoil/mineral rights, to apply for and obtain permits, licences, or leases to carry out quarrying activities on their own land; hence, he asserts that he has the absolute right to conduct quarrying operations on his land without any permit, licence, or lease from any authority. He also 8 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:27:- contends that he was not heard before the passing of Ext. P5 order, and thus it violates the principles of natural justice.
8. The core points of the State's contentions in its counter- affidavit are as follows:
• Though the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob9 held that ownership of the mineral wealth of the land comprised in erstwhile Malabar province vests with the respective owners and not on the State, by the enactment of Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, all rights in the minerals, the soil and subsoil of all lands of whatsoever ownership or tenure in the erstwhile Malabar province stands vested in and shall be subject to the control of Government w.e.f. 30/12/2019. • MMDR Act, 1957, is a regulatory measure. Despite the ownership of the subsoil/mineral being conferred on the owner of the property, it does not detract from the requirement for a lease/licence/permit to extract and transport such minor mineral/ordinary earth therefrom. Even if the extraction of the minor minerals is from the land owned 9 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:28:- by private persons, where minerals vest with them, the owner of the land has to comply with the statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957, and the Rules made thereunder.
• Before the extraction of the mines and minerals from their respective properties, the petitioners did not obtain any statutory permissions/licences/clearances from the competent authorities concerned. Therefore, the extraction was illegal and violates the MMDR Act, 1957 and the KMMC Rules, 2015.
• Since the petitioners raised minerals from the subject properties without any statutory permissions or without any lawful authority, the State has every power to recover from them the minerals so raised or, where such minerals have already been disposed of, the price thereof, fine and royalty. • Any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining, and in the case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear the consequence of the illegality and compensate 100% of the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:29:- price of unlawfully mined mineral. Since the petitioners did not procure any statutory clearances/permissions/licences or approved mining plan, the extraction carried out in their respective properties has to be treated as illicit and illegal. So much so, over and above the statutory prescriptions, the petitioners have to pay 100% of the value of the minerals extracted therefrom.
• Even if minor mineral is extracted from one's own land, he is obliged to obtain a quarrying permit on the same conditions as in Chapter II of the KMMC Rules, 2015 and to submit an attested copy of the same to the competent authority, failing which, extraction of minerals as is done in the case of the petitioners will fall within the ambit of illegal extraction, leading to penal consequences.
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 has been enacted in consonance with the policy of the State, taking cue of Article 31(b) of the Constitution of India, towards securing that ownership and control of mineral resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. So WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:30:- much so, it does not require payment of compensation or indemnification to the owner of the property. Therefore, it can never be said that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is violative of Articles 300 A and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. • By virtue of the impugned Act, the subsoil rights/mineral rights over the subject property alone vest with the State, and there is no expropriation of property as such. No acquisition of property is also involved. In that view of the matter as well, there is no need to incorporate a provision in the Act for payment of compensation to the owners of the properties whose subsoil rights/mineral wealth are proposed to be vested in the Government by virtue of the Act. • While issuing Travancore and Cochin Proclamations, no compensation was paid for the vesting of minerals in the State. Having not granted compensation to the owners of the properties comprised in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin provinces, no compensation can be granted to the owners of the properties comprised in the erstwhile Malabar province alone, since it will again lead to arbitrary discrimination. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:31:- • The State Government is a delegate of the Central Government insofar as minor minerals are concerned. The rule-making power pertaining to minor minerals, including those meant for regulating the mineral concessions and for purposes connected therewith, exclusively falls within the realm of the State Government.
• By virtue of Entries 18 and 23 of the List II, viz. the State list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, coupled with Entry 42 of List III, viz. the Concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, the State is legally entitled to promulgate the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
• In view of the notwithstanding clause contained in the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, it will override the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, being a later one, and was brought into force to deal with specific circumstances as demonstrated therein, to vest the subsoil right in the State, will have precedence over the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
• Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 was preceded by the Kerala WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:32:- Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance of 2019 (Ordinance 43/2019). The said ordinance was in force from 30/12/2019. It was in the said circumstances, Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 was given retrospective effect w.e.f. 30/12/2019. Hence, granting retrospective effect to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 is valid and legal. • The State Government has the right to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals, irrespective of the ownership of the land. The ownership of the minor mineral is therefore immaterial.
• The ownership of the subsoil rights within the Malabar area would not make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect royalty is concerned. The holders of the land in the Malabar area are also liable to obtain permission from the statutory authority and pay royalty/rent, etc, before conducting any quarrying operations on their land. When illegal mining/quarrying is conducted, the Government may recover the mineral or its value under Section 25(1) of the MMDR Act.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:33:- • A quarrying permit or lease, as the case may be, shall only be granted on payment of royalty as the competent authority may fix based on the scheduled rates and also on payment of surface rent, debt rent and cess, as the case may be. Payment of royalty is a precondition for the issuance of mineral transit passes and movement permits. • KMMC Rules, 2015 has been amended as per GO(P) No.38/2023/ID dated 31/3/2023, published in the extraordinary Gazette No.1231 dated 31/3/2023. Rule 89 of KMMC Rules, 2015 has been deleted therefrom w.e.f. 01/04/2023. WP(C) No. 15986/2023 has been filed only on 16/5/2023. The petitioner seeks to assail the vires of the provision, which is no more in existence.
• Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, as contended by the petitioners. Amendment carried out to the KMMC Rules, 2015, as per the GO dated 31/3/2023, is invoking the power conferred on the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, and is well within the delegated legislative power of the State. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:34:- • There is no illegality or irregularity in issuing demand notices to the petitioners to pay the cost of the illegally extracted minerals, fine and royalty.
Points for Determination
9. On consideration of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Is the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, violative of Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution since it does not provide compensation to the owners of minerals while vesting the same in the State?
(ii) Does the State Government have legal competence to enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021?
(iii) Is the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, repugnant to the MMDR Act, 1957 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
(iv) Is the granting of retrospective effect to the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:35:- Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 legal and proper?
(v) Can the State claim royalty before the appointed day under the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, even if the Act is found to be constitutional in view of the law declared in Thressiamma Jacob10 and Section 17A(3) of the MMDR Act?
(vi) Whether the State Government has the right to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals irrespective of its ownership?
(vii) Is the holder of the land in the Malabar area liable to obtain a permit/licence from statutory authorities to carry out quarrying activities in their own land and pay royalty?
10
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:36:-
(viii) Is Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 beyond the delegated legislative power of the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957?
(ix) Does Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 violate Article 19(1)(g) r/w 14 of the Constitution?
10. I have heard Sri.MKS. Menon and Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.B.Hood and Sri.Shashank Devan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.Kannan, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, the learned Special Government Pleader.
Analysis and Findings Point (i)
11. As already stated, the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob11 held that ownership of the subsoil/mineral wealth of land 11 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:37:- in the erstwhile Malabar area vests with the respective landowners and not with the State, in the absence of any enactment that vests the mineral wealth or subsoil rights in the State. This was in contrast with laws in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas, where subsoil rights were vested with the State through the Travancore Proclamation of 1881 and the Cochin Proclamation of 1905, respectively. The State Government felt that subsoil rights in lands in the erstwhile Malabar area should be brought on par with rights in other parts of the State, especially in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas. Therefore, the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance of 2019 (Ordinance 43 of 2019) was promulgated, followed by its re-promulgation through Ordinance 4 of 2020, Ordinance 12 of 2020, Ordinance 23 of 2020, Ordinance 64 of 2020, Ordinance 11 of 2021, Ordinance 91 of 2021, and Ordinance 124 of 2021, vesting mineral rights in the soil and subsoil of land in the State, excluding land under the Travancore and Cochin proclamations. Ordinance 124 of 2021 was replaced by the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which came into force WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:38:- retrospectively from 30/12/2019, the date of Ordinance 43 of 2019. The Act does not provide any compensation to landowners when vesting subsoil rights with the State. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos.14425/23, 15037/23, 38526/23, 10670/24, and 43302/24 assail the vires of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 and seek a declaration that the said Act, being an enactment that offers no compensation to owners of the minerals upon vesting rights in the State, violates Article 300A and Article 14 of the Constitution and is thus unconstitutional.
12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS. Menon submitted that minerals are property attracting Article 300A of the Constitution, and when the minerals are vested in the State, it effectively takes away a portion of the property itself. The twin requirements of public purpose and compensation, although seemingly omitted from Article 300A, are implied in the said Article and List III Entry 42, and when a person is deprived of his property, the Constitutional Court can always examine the validity of the statute on those grounds. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, being an enactment WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:39:- that provides no compensation, attracts the vice of illegal deprivation of property under Article 300A of the Constitution and is therefore liable to be struck down. It was also argued that the impugned Act is not a statute relating to agrarian reforms and, therefore, does not enjoy the protection of Article 31A. Reliance was placed on Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others 12, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another13 and K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka14 in support of his submissions.
13. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam supported the arguments of Sri. MKS Menon and submitted that the concept of eminent domain be read into Article 300 A, and the impugned Act is unconstitutional for not providing compensation to owners of the minerals while vesting the same with the State.
14. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. 12 (2011) 8 SCC 708 13 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 14 (2011) 9 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:40:- S. Kannan, appearing for the State, defended the constitutional validity of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 and refuted the submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the State, as the trustee of the natural resources under the public trust doctrine, has a legal duty to protect them, which are meant for public use. The Act impugned has been enacted in consonance with the policy of the State with an objective to ensure that the resources of the community are evenly distributed at its best, to sub-serve the common good of the public at large and for the protection of the environment. Therefore, it does not require payment of just compensation or indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated. It is the very negation of effectuating the public purpose. The Act is not ultra vires to Article 300A of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, claim compensation for the deprivation of their properties. It is also submitted that by virtue of the Act, only subsoil rights/mineral wealth are vested in the State, and no acquisition or expropriation of property as such is involved. Therefore, there is no necessity to WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:41:- pay compensation. The Act has been envisaged to bring uniformity in the State of Kerala insofar as the rights over the subsoil and mineral wealth are concerned. No compensation was granted to the owners of the property comprised in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas while taking over their respective rights over the subsoil/mineral wealth. Having not granted compensation to the owners of the properties comprised in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas, no compensation can be granted to the owners of the properties comprised in the erstwhile Malabar area alone, since it will lead to arbitrary discrimination. Reliance was placed on Jilubhai 15 , K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd 16 , Planters Forum v. State of Kerala17, Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd.18, Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners v. V.Gopinath and Others 19 and Property Owners' Association v. State of 15 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 16 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 17 2015 (2) KLT 783 18 2024 SCC OnLine SC 188 19 2023 SCC OnLine SC 137 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:42:- 20 Maharashtra .
15. The right to property was included in the Constitution as a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(f) and Art.31 of the Constitution. However, by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were removed in their entirety from the Chapter on fundamental rights, Part III. It was through the same amendment that Article 300A was inserted into the Constitution, which reads as follows:
"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
16. Although no longer in the nature of a fundamental right, the provision has been characterised as a constitutional and human right21. Deprivation of property can be without the consent 20 2024 KLT OnLine 2648 (SC) 21 Chandigarh Housing Board v. Major General Devinder Singh (Retd.), (2007) 9 SCC 67, Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:43:- of the owner and against his will, but the mandate of the Constitution is that it can be done only by authority of law. However, Article 300A cannot be construed as a declaration of the right of the State to deprive any person of his property, but has to be understood as a limitation on the power of the State to take away private property. Deprivation of property without the sanction of law has no constitutional support. No law, no deprivation is the principle of Article 300A.
17. Deprivation of property, by any mode, is comprehended in this provision. Deprivation may be acquisition; deprivation may also occur in ways other than through acquisition. An acquisition is a compulsory vesting of the property of a person with the State. It is traceable undoubtedly to the power of eminent domain assured to every sovereign. The right of eminent domain is the right of the sovereign State, through its regular agencies, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State, including private property without its owner's consent on account of public exigency and for the public good. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:44:- Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the Government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives the right to resume possession of the property in the manner directed by the Constitution and the laws of the State, whenever the public interest requires it. The concept of public use has been inextricably related to an appropriate exercise of power and is considered essential in any statement of its meaning. Payment of compensation, though not an essential ingredient of the connotation of the term, is an essential element of the valid exercise of such power. Courts have defined "eminent domain" as the power of the sovereign to take property for public use without the owner's consent upon making just compensation 22 . The question of whether the concept of eminent domain and its key components should be read into Article 300A came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in K. T. Plantation 23 . It was held that though the principles of eminent 22 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252 23 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:45:- domain, as such, were not seen incorporated in Article 300A, they can be inferred in that Article. However, it was made clear that, after the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional obligation to pay compensation to a person deprived of their property primarily depends on the terms of the statute and legislative policy.
18. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that by virtue of the impugned Act, the subsoil rights/ mineral rights over the subject property alone vest with the State, and there is no deprivation of property as such to attract Article 300A. The question then is, what is the meaning of the word 'property' and 'deprived' used in Article 300A?
19. The definition of the term 'immovable property' given in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is in the negative and is not exhaustive. Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, 1908 defines immovable property as "immovable property" includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:46:- is attached to the earth, but not standing timber, growing crops or grass. According to the definition given in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 "immovable property" shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus, every interest in the land or a benefit arising out of land, will be 'immovable property'. The question whether minerals are property under Article 300A came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jilubhai24 and was answered in the affirmative. It was held in paragraph 42, thus:
"42. Property in the legal sense means an aggregate of rights that are guaranteed and protected by law. it extends to every species of valuable right and interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose of the thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. The dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects is called property. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing is property in legal parameters. Therefore, the word 'property ' connotes everything which is subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or 24 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:47:- invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate or status. Property, therefore, within the constitutional protection, denotes a group of rights inhering citizen's relation to a physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of it in accordance with law. In Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon, Reprint Ed. 1987 at p. 1031, it is stated that the property is the most comprehensive of all terms which can be used, inasmuch as it is indicative and descriptive of every possible interest which the party can have. The term property has a most extensive signification, and, according to its legal definition, consists in free use, enjoyment, and disposition by a person of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land, in Dwarkadas Srinivas's case, this court gave extended meaning to the word property. Mines, minerals and quarries are property attracting Article 300A.
(emphasis supplied).
Recently, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India 25 , it was reiterated by the Supreme Court that sub-soil minerals form part of the land.
20. Interpreting the word 'deprived' in clause (1) of Article 31, the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal 25 (2024 ) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:48:- Bose26 held that withholding the property from the possession and enjoyment of its owner or materially reducing its value would amount to 'deprivation' within the meaning of Article 31(1). It was further held that Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 dealt with the topic of 'eminent domain', the expressions 'taken possession of' or 'acquired' occurring in Clause (2) have the same meaning as the word 'deprived' used in Clause (1). In other words, both the clauses are concerned with deprivation of the property; taken possession of or acquired, used in Clause (2), refers to the deprivation of the property in Clause (1). Taking possession or acquisition should be in the connotation of the acquisition or requisition of the property for a public purpose. Deprivation specifically referable to acquisition or requisition and not for any and every kind of deprivation. In Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., 27 it was similarly held that the words 'taken possession of' or 'acquired' in Art. 31(2) has to be read along with the word 'deprived' in clause (1). Taking possession or acquisition amounts to deprivation within the meaning of clause 26 AIR 1954 SC 92 27 (1954) SCR 674 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:49:- (1). Deprivation of property is by acquisition or requisition, or taking possession for a public purpose.
21. Article 300A was, in fact, a restoration of Article 31(1). Therefore, the interpretation given to the term 'deprived' found in Article 31(1) could be extended to the term 'deprived' found in Article 300 A as well. Interpreting the word 'deprivation' in Article 300 A, it was held in Jilubhai28 that acquisition of mines, minerals and quarries is deprivation under Article 300A. Minerals, being benefits arising out of land, are part of the land until the same is removed through some process. When a part of the land, namely, minerals, is vested, in effect, the State is taking away part of the land, i.e., mineral deposit, and as a result, the owner is in effect deprived of his part of the land itself, attracting Article 300 A.
22. The main argument of the petitioners is that Article 300A and the statute framed thereunder must fulfill two requirements: a public purpose and adequate compensation. It is well established that public purpose is a prerequisite for invoking 28 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:50:- Article 300A 29 . The key issue then is whether payment of compensation is mandatory.
23. The scope of Article 300A with respect to the requirement to pay compensation has been explained in Jilubhai30 where the Supreme Court examined whether Section 69-A, introduced by the Gujarat Amendment Act 8 of 1982 to the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 --which deals with vesting mines, minerals, and quarries in lands held by individuals, including Girasdars and Barkhalidars--violates Article 300A of the Constitution due to the absence of compensation. The Court held that when the State exercises the power of eminent domain under Article 300A and acquires, requisitions, or takes possession of a citizen's property to give effect to any of the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution, it is not required to pay just compensation or indemnification to the owner of the expropriated property.
24. In Rajiv Sarin31, as a result of an amendment effected to 29 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 30 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596 31 Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2011) 8 SCC 708 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:51:- the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the rights of every intermediary in respect of forest land situated in specified areas came to be vested with the State Government. The amendment and notice came to be challenged. The Supreme Court, speaking through a Constitution Bench, drew the distinction between 'No compensation' and 'Nil compensation', and held that a law seeking to acquire private property for a public purpose cannot say that 'no compensation' would be paid. The Court proceeded to find that it was a case of 'no compensation' at all, and therefore, it attracted the vice of illegal deprivation of property and gave relief on the said basis. This is after finding that the property in question was a productive asset.
25. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.T. Plantation32 had elaborately considered Article 300A and payment of compensation. After noticing the entire constitutional history of right to property, it was held that though payment of compensation 32 K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:52:- amount is a constitutional requirement under Article 30(1-A) and under the second proviso to Article 31-A(1), unlike Article 300-A, after the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional obligation to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property primarily depends upon the terms of the statute and the legislative policy. True, in paragraph 192, it was held that a law providing for the acquisition of private property for a public purpose cannot say that no compensation could be paid. However, in paragraph 189, it was made clear that the requirement of public purpose, for deprivation of a person of his property under Article 300-A, is a precondition, but no compensation or nil compensation or its illusiveness has to be justified by the State on judicially justiciable standards. Measures designed to achieve greater social justice may call for lesser compensation, and such a limitation by itself will not make legislation invalid or unconstitutional or confiscatory. In other words, the right to claim compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred in that article, and it is for the State to justify its stand on justifiable grounds, which may depend upon the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:53:- legislative policy, object and purpose of the statute and a host of other factors. In each case, courts will have to examine the scheme of the impugned Act, its object, purpose, as also the question whether payment of nil compensation or nominal compensation would make the impugned law unjust, unfair or unreasonable in terms of other provisions of the Constitution as indicated above.
26. In Planters Forum33, the provisions of Section 3 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, were challenged before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground, among other things, as violative of Article 300A of the Constitution, as no provisions are made for the payment of compensation in respect of lands vesting with the Government under Section 3. After referring to various case laws, including Rajiv Sarin34 and K.T. Plantation35, it was held that the right under Article 300A should be interpreted in accordance with the particular legislation. Non-payment of compensation may, in some cases, be held to be violative of Article 300A, and in some 33 Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783 34 Rajv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 708 35 K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:54:- cases, it may not be that the right of compensation is a necessary ingredient. Each case has to be looked into and decided in its own setting.
27. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS. Menon submitted that the State has no defence based on the protection under Article 31 A and 31 C of the Constitution, and since Jilubhai 36 was based on Article 31 A protection and Planters Forum 37 was based on Article 31 C protection, the dictum laid down therein cannot be applied to these cases. I cannot subscribe to the said submission. It is true that in Jilubhai 38 , it was found that the Act impugned therein was protected by Article 31 A as it related to agrarian reform and in Planters Forum39, it was found that the Act involved therein was saved by Article 31 C as it was enacted to give effect to the directive principles of state policy enshrined under Article 39 (b). Still, independent of the said findings, the validity of the provisions challenged in the Acts was examined on the touchstone 36 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. (1) SC 596 37 Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783 38 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. (1) SC 596 39 Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:55:- of Article 300A in both the decisions and arrived at a finding that the impugned statutes are not violative of Article 300A of the Constitution due to the absence of compensation.
28. In Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners 40 also, the Supreme Court, following K.T. Plantation 41 , reiterated that though the payment of compensation is a constitutional requirement under Article 30(1A) and under the second proviso to Article 31A (1) unlike Article 300A, after the Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional obligation to pay compensation to a person deprived of his property is dependent on the Statute.
29. Thus, the law is well settled that when the State exercises the power of eminent domain under Article 300A and acquires or otherwise takes possession of a citizen's property, the payment of compensation is not mandatory in all cases. The constitutional obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person deprived of his property is dependent on the scheme, terms, 40 Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners v. V.Gopinath and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 137 41 K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:56:- object and purpose of the statute and the legislative policy. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. Now, let me examine whether the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is saved from challenge on the ground that it violates Article 300A by applying this test.
30. It is a trite law that natural resources are vested with the State as a trustee, in view of the Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources, being a gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The duty to preserve natural resources in pristine purity has been highlighted in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath42. After considering the opinion of various renowned authors and decisions rendered by other countries as well on 42 (1997) 1 SCC 388 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:57:- environment and ecology, the Supreme Court held that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristics, which concept is finding its way into the law of the land. The Court accepted the applicability of the Public Trust Doctrine and held that it was founded on the idea that certain common properties, such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. These natural resources have a great importance to the people as a whole, so it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject to private ownership. It was held that our legal system -- based on English common law -- includes the Public Trust Doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of these resources. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect these natural resources.
31. In State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others43, it was held that minerals are natural resources. The Supreme Court 43 AIR 1981 SC 711 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:58:- sounded a note of caution to all Governments in the following words:
"6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation ..............."
32. Thus, Public Trust Doctrine applies to minerals by treating them as part of the nation's shared natural wealth that the Government hold the same in trust for the public good and for future generations.
33. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the reasons given by the State Government in its counter-affidavit for enacting the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the State in WP(C) No. 14425/2023 which has been adopted in almost all the writ petitions. It is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, has been WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:59:- promulgated in consonance with the policy of the State to ensure that the material resources of the community are evenly distributed at its best, to serve the common good of the public at large.
34. The Constitution of India provided Directive Principles vis-à-vis the fundamental rights to realise social and economic democracy for the successful working of political democracy, in which the State is bound to provide to every person in the society equality of opportunity in economic arrangements. The fundamental rights and the directive principles are the two wheels of the chariot as an aid to make social and economic democracy a truism44. The Directive Principles of the State policy lay down the fundamental principles for the governance of the country, and through those principles, the State is directed to secure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common 44 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:60:- detriment 45 . Material resources and operation of the economic system shall be so organised as to establish the egalitarian social order.
35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. 1 SC 596 47 Property Owners' Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 KLT OnLine 2648 (SC) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:61:- illustrate, nonexhaustively, there may exist private ownership of forests, ponds, fragile areas, wetlands and resource-bearing lands. Similarly, resources like spectrum, airwaves, natural gas, mines and minerals, which are scarce and finite, may sometimes be within private control. Since the community has a vital interest in the retention of the character of these resources, they fall within the ambit of the expression "material resources of the community".
36. It is accordingly clear that the minor mineral resources are natural resources that fall within the expression 'material resources of the community' and the State, as trustees of such resources, have a duty to take them over and manage scientifically for the public good rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The impugned Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, has been precisely enacted to achieve the said object and therefore, is saved from challenge on the ground that it violates Article 300A. The petitioners could not demonstrate how their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 has been violated in consequence of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. Hence, I hold that Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is not violative of Articles WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:62:- 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India.
Point( ii)
37. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 38526/2023 has challenged the legislative competence of the State legislature to enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam argued that mineral development is a subject matter under the exclusive domain of the Union under Section 2 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Entry 54 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950, and thus, the power to legislate on minerals is vested with the Parliament. The State cannot take control of minerals, whether it is major or minor, by vesting through legislation and, therefore, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is ultra vires, submitted the learned Senior Counsel. I find no force in the said submission.
38. By virtue of Entries 18 (land) and 23 (Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development) of the List II, viz., the State List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State is legally entitled to promulgate the Act of 2021. Entries 18 and 23 of List II WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:63:- of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution reads thus:
"18. Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization."
"23. 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."
39. The expression 'land' in Entry 18 includes lands of every description. In Jilubhai48, it was held that the land in Entry 18 is not restricted to agricultural land, and the words 'rights in' or 'over land' confer very wide power which are not limited by rights between the landholders inter se or the landholder or the State or the landholder or the tenant. Mineral, being land, also falls within the scope of Entry 18 of List II of the 7 th Schedule. Entry 18 of List II treats land as a unit. In Mineral Area Development Authority49, the Supreme Court held that minerals or ores in their natural state are part of the earth and remain embedded unless extracted. 48
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596 49 Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:64:- Therefore, the land includes everything over and below the surface. It was also held that the legislative competency of the State to tax land under Entry 49 of List II remains unaffected by the MMDR Act, 1957. Thus, the legislative power of the State to enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, under Entry 18 of List II is not affected by the MMDR Act, 1957. Entry 23 of List II is subject to Entry 54 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950. In view of Section 2 of the MMDR Act, 1957, for matters not specifically provided therein, the State retains the competency to legislate based on Entry 23 of List II of the 7 th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950. Therefore, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is not ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. Point (iii)
40. The petitioner in WP (C) No.38526/2023 has also sought a declaration that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is repugnant to the MMDR Act, 1957 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam submitted that under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the property could be WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:65:- acquired only on payment of adequate compensation, irrespective of the purpose of acquisition and the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which provides no compensation while vesting the minor minerals with the State, is in direct conflict with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It is further submitted that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is in conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957.
41. It is settled that the plea of repugnancy under Article 254(1) of the Constitution would be attracted only if the two statutes occupy the same field and there is a direct conflict between the provisions of those statutes. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013, focuses on protecting landowners during compulsory acquisition by ensuring fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement, while the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, vests ownership of all mineral rights in the State Government, limiting private ownership of subsoil minerals. The former is about procedural fairness in acquisition, the latter about sovereign control over natural resources. Thus, not only do those Acts relate to different subject matters, but acquisition and vesting mentioned therein are conceptually different. That apart, in view of the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:66:- notwithstanding clause contained in Section 3 of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the said Act shall and will override the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, being a later one and brought into force to deal with the specific circumstances as demonstrated therein, to vest the subsoil rights in the State, will have precedence over RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
42. Similarly, the MMDR Act, 1957, is a central legislation that regulates mining activities across India, focusing on licensing, concessions, royalties, and Union control. In contrast, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is a state-specific law that provides for statutory vesting of ownership of all minerals in the State.
43. The three Acts differ in scope and purpose. Together, they represent distinct but interlinked frameworks governing resource extraction, land rights, and compensation. Thus, the challenge based on repugnancy must fail.
Point (iv)
44. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force in 2021 with effect from 30/12/2019. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:67:- 14425/23, 15037/23, 10670/24 and 43302/24 challenge the retrospective effect given to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. It is submitted that the State cannot take away the vested right through legislation by applying it retrospectively.
45. It is settled that the power to make law on an Entry in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution could be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively unless there is an express constitutional prohibition to make an enactment on that behalf 50. It is equally settled law that the power to make law prospectively would include the power to make the law retrospectively. Ext.P3 Act was preceded by Kerala Mineral (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance 43/2019 dated 29/12/2019, Ordinance 4/2020, Ordinance 12/2020, Ordinance 11/2021, Ordinance 91/2021, and Ordinance 124/2021. Ordinance 124/2021 was replaced by the Kerala Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. Thus, the Ordinance was in force from 30/12/2019 onwards, and it was in the said circumstances, the Act was given retrospective operation w.e.f. 30/12/2019. Accordingly, it must be held that the retrospective operation cannot be faulted, nor would 50 Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Bihar, (1958) SCR 1335, and Rama Krishna v. State of Bihar, (1964) 1 SCR 897 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:68:- it be declared ultra vires.
46. In view of the findings on points (i) to (iv), I hold that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is constitutional and valid. Points (v), (vi) and (vii)
47. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.36843/2015, 15986/2023, 15037/2023 and 43302/2024 Sri MKS. Menon submitted that even if the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is considered constitutional, the State cannot claim royalty from landholders for minerals extracted from their own land before 30/12/2019, the date on which the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force, due to the Supreme Court's declaration in Thressiamma Jacob 51 that minerals in the Malabar area do not belong to the State but to the surface owner, and Section 17 A (3) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Relying on the ruling by the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority52, which states that royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for the enjoyment of mineral rights, it is argued that the 51 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 52 Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:69:- State cannot levy royalty from landowners in the Malabar region for extracting minor minerals from their own land. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that neither the MMDR Act, 1957, nor the KMMC Rules, 2015, contain provisions requiring permission for self-extraction of minerals from one's own land; hence, the respondent State cannot claim costs or fines on the grounds that the extraction was unauthorized or illegal.
48. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No.11397/2017 Sri.T.B.Hood submitted that there is no provision in KMMC Rules, 2015, which enjoins owners of land in the Malabar area, who are also owners of subsoil/mineral rights, to apply for and obtain permits, licences, or leases to carry out quarrying activities on their own land; hence, they have absolute right to conduct quarrying operations on their land without any permit, licence, or lease from any authority. The learned counsel further submitted that for quarrying activities on land in which mineral rights vest with private persons, the KMMC Rules, 2015, do not impose liability on the property owner to pay royalty.
49. Per Contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:70:- S. Kannan submitted that even if the extraction of the minor mineral is from the land owned by private persons, where minerals vest with them, the owner of the land has to comply with the statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957, and the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory permissions/licences/clearances from the competent authorities concerned. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that since the petitioners raised minerals from the subject properties without any statutory permissions or without any lawful authority, the extraction carried out in their respective properties has to be treated as illicit and illegal. So much so, the State has every power to recover from them the minerals so raised or, where such minerals have already been disposed of, the price thereof and fine. It is also submitted that the State Government has the right to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals, irrespective of the ownership of the land. The ownership of the subsoil rights within the Malabar area would not make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect royalty. Therefore, the holders of the land in the Malabar area are WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:71:- also liable to obtain permission from the statutory authority and pay royalty/rent, etc, before conducting any quarrying operations on their land. Reliance was placed on Sirajuddin v. District Collector53, Joby v. District Collector54, Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 55 , Aloshias C. Antony v. Government of Kerala 56, Prakash Nayak v. District Collector57 and Common Cause v. Union of India58.
50. First, let me deal with the contention that the owners of the land in the Malabar area, who are owners of subsoil/mineral rights also, have an absolute right to conduct quarrying operations in their own land without any permit/licence/lease whatsoever from any authority.
51. Mining operations are controlled and regulated by the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. Mining operation is defined in Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as meaning 'any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral. Section 4 of the Act says mining operations to be under licence or lease. It 53 2017 (1) KLT 756 54 2017 (1) KLT 183 55 2018 (4) KLT 627 56 2014 (1) KLT 536 57 2016 (4) KLT 102 (FB) 58 2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:72:- reads thus:
"4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.― (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or of a exploration licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:
Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited., a Government company within the meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any other entities including private entities that may be notified for this purpose subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Central Government. Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease mining concession WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:73:- or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.
(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(2) No mineral concession shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rule made under section 18, undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any mineral concession."
52. Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 provides that no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 4(2) provides that no mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 4(1A) says that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:74:- mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 5(2) provides for certain restrictions on the grant of a mining lease. It provides that the State Government shall not grant a mining lease unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a mining plan duly approved by the Central Government or by the State Government in respect of the concerned mine and for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned. Section 21 deals with penalties and sub- section (1) thereof provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. Sub-section (5) of Section 21 provides that whenever any person raises without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, in addition thereto, the State Government may recover from such person rent, royalty or tax as the case may be for the period during which the land was WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:75:- occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
53. Invoking the power conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State of Kerala has framed the KMMC Rules, 2015. Chapter II of the KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with the grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which minerals or mineral right belong to Government and Chapter III deals with the grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which mineral rights vest with private persons. Chapter V of the KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with the grant of quarrying lease in respect of lands in which minerals or mineral rights belong to the Government and Chapter VII deals with the grant of quarrying lease in respect of lands in which mineral rights vest with private persons. Rule 3 of Chapter II, which deals with the grant of quarrying permit, reads thus:
"3. Grant of quarrying permit.--(1) On application made to it the competent authority under these rules may grant a quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract any minor mineral, other than dimension stone, from any specified land within the limits of its jurisdiction and authority as notified by the Government in the official Gazette from time to time on payment of royalty as the competent authority may fix on the basis of the rates specified in schedule I or IV, as the case WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:76:- may be and also on payment of such surface rent and cess as may be assessable on the lands.
(2) The competent authority may grant a permit for a lower quantity than applied for or refuse to grant such permit for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(3) The area under a quarrying permit shall be a contiguous unit and shall not exceed one hectare.
(4) The competent authority under these rules shall send a copy of the quarrying permit granted by it to the District Collector and the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution concerned."
54. Rules 20 to 22 of Chapter III, which deal with the grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which mineral right vests with private persons, reads thus:
"20.Grant of quarrying permit.--On application made to him in form 'A', a private person in whom is vested the mineral rights in the lands owned by him may grant a quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract and remove from a specified land any minor mineral not exceeding 10,000 tonnes in quantity under one permit under the same conditions as specified in Chapter II under which the competent authority or the officer authorised by him in that regard may grant a quarrying permit in respect of lands in which the minerals vest in Government.
21.Duties of the grantor.--The private person who may grant a quarrying permit under Rule 20 shall submit to the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:77:- competent authority or any officer empowered by him in this regard an attested true copy of the permit issued by him to any person, within thirty days of its grant.
22.Prohibition of working of quarries.--If the Government or competent authority has reason to believe that the grant of a quarrying permit is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, direct the parties concerned not to undertake any quarrying operations in the area to which the permit relates."
55. Indeed, Rule 20 does not mandate a permit from authorities. However, going by the said Rule, for granting a quarrying permit, by a person who is the owner of the subsoil, the same procedure as the competent authority would undertake under Chapter II has to be adopted.
56. Rule 108 deals with penalties and sub-rule (2) thereof says that whenever any person raises without any lawful authority any minor mineral from any land, the Government or the competent authority may recover from such person or the occupier of the land the mineral so raised, or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:78:- for the mineral extracted by such person or occupier of the land without any lawful authority.
57. The State of Kerala, invoking the power conferred under Section 23C of the MMDR Act, 1957, framed the Transportation Rules, 2015. For transportation of a minor mineral, the provisions of the Transportation Rules, 2015 have to be followed. As per Rule 3(1), no person other than the lessee or holder of a quarrying permit or movement permit under KMMC Rules, 2015 or Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 or Mining Lease under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 shall stock, sell or offer for sale for commercial purpose or trade any mineral or mineral products mentioned in Schedule I of the KMMC Rules, 2015 or in Schedule II of MMDR Act, 1957 in the State without holding a dealers' licence under those Rules. Therefore, a statutory prohibition is contemplated under Rule 3 of the Transportation Rules, 2015, to stop, sell or offer to sell and transport or cause to be transported any mineral subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
58. As already stated, as per Section 4 of the MMDR Act, 1957, no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area, WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:79:- except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease, granted under the Act and Rules made thereunder. So also, as per Section 4 (1A), no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, there is an absolute prohibition for undertaking any mining operations and consequential transportation and storage of minerals, otherwise than in accordance with the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. In Prakash Nayak v. District Collector59, the Full Bench of this Court took the view that prohibition contained in Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957 applies to all minerals, including minor minerals and when the Rules framed by a State Government do not contain provision to deal with such a situation or to deal with violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, such violation will have the consequences including prosecution, seizure and confiscation as provided under Section 21 of the MMDR Ac, 59 2016 (4) KLT 102 (FB) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:80:- 1957. In Common Cause v. Union of India60, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act makes it clear that no person can carry out any mining operations except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. Obviously, any person carrying on mining operations without a mining lease is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining.
59. Apart from procuring a quarrying lease/quarrying permit to carry out mining operations, a person has to obtain various other statutory permissions/clearances/licences, such as approved mining plan and mining scheme as contemplated under Rules 53 to 68 of KMMC Rules, 2015, environmental clearance issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority as is contemplated under EIEA Notification of 2006 and laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana61, consent to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, explosive licence issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization under the Explosive Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder and 60 2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC) 61 (2012) 4 SCC 629 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:81:- licence issued by the Local Self Government institutions concerned. By virtue of Rule 8 of KMMC Rules, 2015, a quarrying permit can only be granted after obtaining statutory licences/permissions/clearances as is contemplated under the law.
60. This Court in Sirajuddin v. District Collector62 and Joby v. District Collector63 held that, despite the ownership of the subsoil being conferred on the owner of the property, it does not detract from the requirement for a lease/licence/permit to extract minor minerals from such property. It was further held that in case of extraction, even if made from land owned by private persons, the owner is obliged under Chapter III of KMMC Rules, 2015, to get a quarrying permit on the same conditions as in Chapter II of the said Rules and submit an attested copy of the same to the competent authority. Otherwise, the extraction of minerals made from such lands would also be illegal, in which event, it will be open to the State to invoke the provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957. In Chandramohan v. State of Kerala64, this 62 2017 (1) KLT 756 63 2017 (1) KLT 183 64 2018 (4) KLT 627 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:82:- Court held that mere ownership and possession of land within the Malabar area would not make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect royalty and that any person indulging in quarrying activities in such land has to obtain an Environmental Clearance from the statutory authority concerned. In Aloshias C. Antony v. Government of Kerala65, it was held that ordinary earth being a minor mineral, by virtue of Section 4 and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, no person except under and in accordance with the terms of the licence to be obtained under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, can raise/extract a minor mineral or transport the same or store or caused to be transported/stored as specified therein. The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India66 held that illegal mining takes within its fold the extraction of minor minerals without a mining plan, mining scheme, environmental clearance, mining lease or a statutory requirement, as the case may be, and would attract Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. It was also held therein that 65 2014 (1) KLT 536 66 2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:83:- any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining. It has been further held that in case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear the consequences of illegality and that 100% of the price of the legally or unlawfully mined mineral must be compensated by the defaulter.
61. For the aforementioned reasons, petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they need not take permission/licence from any statutory authorities to extract minerals from their own land. Even if the extraction of the minor minerals is from the land owned by the private persons, the owner of the land has to comply with statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory permissions/licences/clearances from the competent authorities concerned. Admittedly, before the extraction of minor minerals from their properties, none of the petitioners obtained environmental clearance, explosive licence, licence from the local self-government institutions concerned, respective consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, approved mining plan, WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:84:- mining permit or mining lease. So much so, the extraction of minor minerals by the petitioners from their properties without obtaining any statutory permissions/licences/clearance would attract Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015.
62. The next crucial question is whether the State can claim royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own land. It is trite that royalty is the consideration payable by the person extracting minerals to the owner of the minerals in proportion to the quantity extracted 67 . The Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob 68 while declaring that the ownership of the subsoil/mineral wealth of the land, comprised in the former Malabar province, rests with the respective owners/jenmis and not with the State, did not express its opinion regarding the liability of the property owners to pay royalty to the State, as that issue had been referred to a Larger Bench. Recently, the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court69 declared that royalty is not a tax and that it is the private owner who is entitled to collect royalty when they are 67 D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20 68 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 69 Mineral Area Development Authority etc. v. Steel Authority, (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:85:- the owners. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS Menon argued that the right of the State to collect royalty depends on the vesting of minerals, and since before the pre-vesting period (prior to the enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021), ownership of the minerals belonged to the owner of the surface; the State cannot claim royalty. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Section 17A (3) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which indicates that the private owner is entitled to claim royalty when mineral rights are vested in the said private person. Conversely, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. S. Kannan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalmia Cement70 and that of this Court in Chandramohan71 to argue that even when minerals vest in a private individual, the State must still be paid royalty.
63. In Dalmia Cement 72 it was held that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the cement companies are pattadars (or the successor in respect of such pattadars) either under the original ryotwari system or the orders of the 'ryotwari 70 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 279 71 Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627 72 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2014) 2 SCC 279 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:86:- patta' pursuant to the abolition of the estates/imams, and also assume for the sake of argument that each of the appellant companies is also the owners of the subsoil rights of their patta lands, such ownership does not make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect royalty is concerned. Dalmia Cement 73 was dealing with those lands in which minerals were vested through the Madras Estate Act, 1948, and the petitioners in that case never challenged the authority of the State to collect royalty. On the other hand, they had admitted their liability to pay royalty. All that they asked for was a concessional rate, which was not there in the Tamil Nadu Rules, much less in any Mineral Concession Rules. Hence, the facts are totally different. There is no conclusive finding in Dalmia Cement74 that owners of the minerals are bound to pay royalty. The finding is that minerals are not vested in Dalmia Cements Company, which was the petitioner therein. Following Dalmia Cement 75 , this Court in Chandramohan 76 held 73 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 2014 (2) SCC 279 74 ibid 75 ibid 76 Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:87:- that the ownership as declared by the Supreme Court would not make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect royalty is concerned. At any rate, after the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority77, the observations in Dalmia Cement 78 and Chandramohan 79 cease to have any effect on the point that the owner of the land must pay royalty to the State. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 279 and 350 of the judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority 80 specifically held that royalty can be claimed only by the owner of the minerals. Paragraphs 279 and 350 read as follows:
"279. As held in the above segments, royalty is paid to the proprietor of the minerals for the exercise of mineral rights. Minerals found in offshore areas are constitutionally vested in the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government can statutorily and contractually demand royalty from lessees for removal or consumption of such minerals. In comparison, subsoil minerals can either be legally vested in the States or continue to remain vested with private landowners. Resultantly, the payment of royalty under Section 9 of 77 Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1 78 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 2014 (2) SCC 279, 79 Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627 80 Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:88:- the MMDR Act is paid either to the State Government or private landowner, as the case may be.
350. The above formula shows that royalty is calculated on the basis of the quantity of minerals extracted or removed. [ Indian Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Royalties", (2011) 4.] The yield from mineral-bearing land is nothing but the quantity of mineral produced. Royalty is per se not the yield from a mineral-bearing land, but the yield (mineral produced) is the important factor in determination of the rate of royalty. Moreover, royalty can be considered as an income if it is paid to a private landowner. [ H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 3 (4th Edn.) 2468.] In case the minerals are vested in the State, the royalty is paid to the State Government, and hence assumes the form of non-tax revenues.
Therefore, royalty is relatable to the yield of the mineral- bearing land as well as the income in case the minerals vest in a private person. To this extent, we clarify the reasoning of this Court in Goodricke [Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 707] ."
(Emphasis supplied)
64. That apart, in paragraph 130, it was affirmed that royalty is a consideration paid by a mining lessee to the lessor for the enjoyment of mineral rights and to compensate for the loss of value of minerals suffered by the owner of the minerals. Thus, only the owner can collect royalty.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:89:-
65. The petitioners have also raised a contention that the demand for royalty is against Section 17A(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which reads as follows:
"17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation. xxxxx (3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section(1A) or sub-section (2), the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time 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 prospecting licence or mining lease."
From the above, it is clear that only the owner of the mineral can claim royalty, and even the State is liable to pay royalty to a private person.
66. For quarrying activities on land in which mineral rights vest with private persons, the KMMC Rules, 2015 do not cast liability on the owner of the property to pay royalty to the Government. Chapter III of the KMMC Rules, 2015, which deals WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:90:- with the grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which mineral rights vest with private persons, is silent regarding royalty. Chapter IV deals with the grant of a quarrying permit in respect of lands in which the mineral rights vest partly in the Government and partly in private persons. It provides that royalty payable shall be shared by the Government and the private person in proportion to the shares they have in the minerals. Chapters III, IV, VII and VIII of KMMC Rules, 2015 were omitted by virtue of the amendment carried out to the KMMC Rules, 2015 by GO(P) No.16/2020/ID dated 12/6/2020. Under Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (Central Government Rules), it was the State that was entitled to collect royalty when minerals were vested in the State and as per Rule 45, the words "State Government" have to be replaced by the word "lessor" when minerals are vested in private persons. That means, instead of the State, it is the lessor who is entitled to collect royalty when minerals are vested in private persons. Similar provisions are there in Rule 80 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. As far as the authority of the State to recover royalty from a person who raises minerals from any land illegally or without authority under WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:91:- Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108(5) of KMMC Rules, 2015, it is permissible only in a case where the land was unlawfully occupied by such a person. Admittedly, the respective lands belong to the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have occupied it unlawfully. Thus, in the absence of a specific provision in the MMDR Act, 1957 or KMMC Rules, 2015 for payment of royalty to Government with regard to self-extraction of minerals and in view of the declaration of the law of the Supreme court in Mineral Area Development Authority 81 that that royalty can be claimed only by the owner of the minerals, the State cannot claim royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own land falling within the Malabar area prior to Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
Points (viii) & (ix)
67. In WP(C) No.15986/2023, the petitioner sought a declaration that Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, is beyond the 81 Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:92:- delegated legislative power of the State u/s 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, and also violative of Article 19 (1) (g) r/w Article 14 of the Constitution. Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 mandates every quarry owner to pay a consolidated payment of royalty if the owner has a quarry as well as a crusher unit. It is contended that the proviso under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, enabling the State to frame rules, specifically states that only once in three years, royalty could be revised. However, Rule 89 of KMMC Rules, 2015 enables the State to collect royalty twice in a year, i.e. once under Rule 7 from the leaseholder and once again under Rule 89 from the crusher unit owner, resulting in double enrichment. By demanding royalty twice, in effect, the State is doubling the demand every year, which authority is not vested with it, is the submission. It is further contended that the unlawful demand of royalty is interfering with the trade and business of the petitioner, violating the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner has also sought the refund of the consolidated royalty, which, according to him, was paid under compelling circumstances.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:93:-
68. By virtue of Article 304 of the Constitution, necessary power had been conferred on the respective State legislatures to frame laws concerning the restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse among States. Entry 54 of the Union list and Entry 23 of the State list places the subject in issue, under the control of the Union and the State, as it is applicable. Therefore, framing of KMMC Rules, 2015 is well within the realm of the State.
69. KMMC Rules, 2015 have been amended as per GO(P)No.38/2023/ID dated 31/3/2023, published in the Extraordinary Gazette No.1231 dated 31/3/2023, invoking the powers conferred on the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. As per the amendment, Rule 89 has been deleted therefrom w.e.f. 01/04/2023. The writ petition has been filed subsequently only on 16/5/2023. Thus, essentially, the petitioner seeks to assail the vires of the provision, which is no more in existence.
70. As per Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, a holder of a quarrying lease for the extraction of granite (building stones) who possesses metal crusher units for t h e production of granite aggregates may opt for their registration under those rules by WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:94:- paying a fee of one thousand rupees for each unit and opt for payment of consolidated royalty for the mineral crushed by such unit at the rates specified in Schedule III instead of paying royalty at the rates specified in Schedule I. The petitioner is not entitled to opt for registration under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, since no quarrying lease has been issued to him. He is not a mineral concessionaire as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957 or under the KMMC Rules, 2015. He did not obtain registration for his metal crusher unit as contemplated under the erstwhile Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. For stocking, selling and exhibiting granite building stones, a dealer's licence as contemplated under the Transportation Rules, 2015, was issued to him. No quarrying lease or quarrying permit has been issued to him for extracting granite building stones from the property. Therefore, erstwhile Rule 89 of KMMC Rules, 2015 has no application or relevance insofar as the petitioner's case is concerned.
71. The petitioner has alleged that he has paid consolidated royalty. He has produced Exts.P3, P3(A) and P3(B) receipts to substantiate the same. However, a perusal of Exts.P3, P3(A) and WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:95:- P3(B) would show that what has been levied as per those receipts was the annual dealers' licence fee payable under the Transportation Rules, 2015, in pursuance of the dealer's licence issued to him. At no point in time, the petitioner paid any amount, either towards consolidated royalty or royalty, under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Hence, he is not entitled to the refund of any amount covered by Exts.P3, P3(A) and P3(B). He is not entitled to the declaration sought for either.
72. Findings on the points (i) to (ix) above are summarised below:
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The State Legislature has legislative competence to enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is not repugnant to the MMDR Act, 1957 and the RFTLARR Act, 2013.
• The granting retrospective effect to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 is valid and legal. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:96:- • Thus, Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is constitutional and valid. • Royalty is the consideration payable by the person extracting minerals to the owner of the minerals in proportion to the quantity extracted to compensate for the loss of value of minerals suffered by the owner of the minerals. So much so, only the owner of the minerals can claim royalty. • The State cannot claim royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own land that fall within the Malabar area, prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. • Even for the self-extraction of minerals from one's own land, where minerals are vested with him, the owner of the land has to comply with the statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957, and the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory permissions/ licences/clearances from the competent authorities concerned. The extraction of minor minerals from such lands without obtaining any statutory permissions/ licences/clearance would be illegal; in which event, it will be open to the State to invoke the provisions under sub-section WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:97:- (5) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 and can recover from such a person the value of the minerals so raised as well as fine.
• Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 is not ultra vires the delegated powers of the State Legislature under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Nor does it violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Conclusions and Reliefs
73. To conclude, let me consider the reliefs prayed and entitled by the petitioners in each case separately based on the above findings.
WP(C) No. 36843/2015
74. The main prayer sought is to quash Exts.P2 and P3 demand notices issued by the 3rd respondent/Geologist demanding royalty from the petitioners for the extraction of minerals from the property owned by them prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. Besides challenging Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioners also seek to strike down Rules 11 and 49 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, to WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:98:- the extent that they provide for payment of royalty for granites quarried from private properties or in the alternative to declare that those Rules do not apply to the petitioners and their quarries which are the subject matter of the writ petition.
75. Rule 11 is coming under Chapter II, and Rule 49 falls under Chapter V of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Chapter II is regarding permits to be issued in case of minerals vested in the Government, whereas Chapter V deals with the leases in cases of land in which minerals are vested in the Government. Neither of these Chapters applies to the case of minerals vested in private persons. Therefore, those Rules do not apply to the case of the petitioners.
76. Admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain any permission/ licence/clearance from any statutory authorities. Therefore, the State is entitled to proceed against them under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of KMMC Rules, 2015 and recover the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine. However, as I have already found that the State cannot claim royalty for the minerals extracted by private persons from their own land that fall within the Malabar area prior to the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:99:- Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the State cannot claim royalty from the petitioners. In Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent has claimed not only the value of the minerals extracted, but royalty as well. Hence, Exts.P2 and P3 to the extent they claim royalty are liable to be quashed. WP(C) No. 11397/2017
77. The main prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 order issued by the 4th respondent/Geologist directing the petitioner to pay the royalty and cost of the bricks manufactured by him using the extracted clay from his property. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that he is not bound to obtain permit under the KMMC Rules, 2015 for conducting quarrying activities in his property. I have already found on point (vii) that even for self- extraction of minerals from one's own land, the owner of the land has to comply with the statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957, the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory permission/licence/clearance from the competent authorities concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought. In Ext.P5, the 4th respondent has claimed WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:100:- the value of bricks as well as royalty. In view of the finding that the State cannot claim royalty for the minerals extracted by private persons from their own land that fall within the Malabar area prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the 4th respondent cannot claim royalty from the petitioner. However, since the extraction of minerals is without obtaining any statutory permission/ licence/clearance, the petitioner is liable to pay the value of the extracted minerals under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. In these circumstances, Ext.P5 order to the extent it claims royalty is liable to be quashed.
WP(C) Nos. 14425/2023 and 15037/2023
78. The main prayer in these writ petitions is to declare that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I have already found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration sought. The petitioner in WP(C) No.15037/2023 challenges Ext.P1 notice issued WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:101:- by the 1st respondent (Senior Geologist) and Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent (Deputy Tahsildar) demanding payment of royalty, value of minerals and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully quarried granite from his property. The petitioner in WP(C) No.14425/2023 challenges Ext.P1 demand notice issued by the 1st respondent (Senior Geologist) demanding payment of royalty, value of minerals and fine alleging he had unlawfully quarried granite from his property and also Ext.P2 communication issued by the 1st respondent to the Village Officer, Kannamangalam, Malappuram District requesting to carry out revenue recovery towards the demand of royalty. Admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, they are liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Exts.P1 and P2 were issued after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 came into force. However, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have a definite case that in Ext.P1 it is not shown as to for which period the 1st respondent is WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:102:- claiming royalty and for the granite extracted prior to 30/12/2019, the date on which the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 came into force, the State cannot claim royalty in view of the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob82. In view of the said averments, this Court, on 16/10/2023, in WP(C) No.14425/2023, directed the learned Government Pleader to place on record an affidavit about the period during which the petitioner has extracted the minerals. Accordingly, the 1st respondent sworn in an affidavit. In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had extracted minerals illegally from his property since 2016. In view of the finding on point No.(vii) that the State cannot claim royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own land that fall within the Malabar area prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the 1st respondent cannot claim royalty from the petitioners for the minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019. Hence, Exts.P1 and P2 in both the writ petitions to the extent they claim royalty prior to 30/12/2019 are liable to be quashed 82 Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:103:- WP(C) No.10670/2024
79. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I have already found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought. The petitioner further challenges Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the 1st respondent (Geologist) and 2nd respondent (Deputy Tahsildar) respectively demanding payment of royalty, value of minerals and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully quarried granite from his property. Admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, he is liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Exts.P1 and P2 were issued after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. The petitioner does not have a case that Exts.P1 and P2 pertain to the granite extracted prior to the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:104:- Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, as well. The petitioner purchased the property in the year 2020 after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. Therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
WP(C) No.38526/2023
80. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional and ultra vires as it is repugnant to the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I have already found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution, nor does it conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFTLARR Act, 2013. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought. The petitioner further challenges Ext.P11 order issued by the 2nd respondent (Geologist) demanding payment of royalty, value of minerals, and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully quarried granites from his property. Admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:105:- statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, he is liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Ext.P11 was issued after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. The petitioner does not have a case that Ext.P11 pertains to the granite extracted prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, as well. Therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 43302/2024
81. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India and is in conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013. I have already found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution; nor does it conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration sought. The petitioners further challenge Ext.P1 order issued by the 1 st WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:106:- respondent/Geologist demanding payment of royalty, value of minerals and fine, alleging that they had unlawfully quarried granite from their properties and and Ext.P2 recovery notice issued by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Tahsildar (RR). Admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain any statutory permission/ licence/ clearance from any statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, they are liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Ext.P1 was issued after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. The petitioners do not have a case that Exts.P1 and P2 pertain to the granite extracted prior to Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, as well. Even according to the petitioners, they became the exclusive owners of the property in the year 2020 after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. Therefore, they are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 15986/2023
82. The prayer in this writ petition is to declare that Rule 89 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:107:- of KMMC Rules, 2015 is beyond the delegated legislative powers of the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act and violates Article 19(1)(g) r/w Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also sought refund of the royalty allegedly collected from him under Section 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. I have found on points (viii) and (ix) that the State has legislative competence to enact Rule 89, and it does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. I have also found that the writ petition was filed after the deletion of Rule 89 and that the said Rule has no application or relevance so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has not paid consolidated royalty under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Hence, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. WP(C) No. 254/2024
83. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in refusing to issue an E-Pass under Rule 26(6) of the Transportation Rules, 2015, enabling him to remove granite materials stored in his crusher unit despite the department having collected a licence fee from him and issued a dealer licence. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:108:-
84. The petitioner is not a mineral concessionaire as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957 or KMMC Rules, 2015. No quarrying lease or quarrying permit has been issued to him for extracting granite stones from the property. The petitioner was carrying out quarrying activities in his property without obtaining any statutory permissions/ licences/clearances from any of the statutory authorities concerned. Therefore, the extraction of minerals was unauthorised and illegal. Hence, he is not entitled to the issuance of a mineral transit pass and movement permit. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.
85. Resultantly, WP(C) Nos. 10670/2024, 38526/2023, 43302/2024, 15986/2023 and 254/2024 are dismissed. WP(C) Nos. 36843/2015, 11397/2017, 14425/2023 and 15037/2023 are disposed of as follows:
(i) Exts.P2 and P3 in WP(C) No.36843/2015 to the extent they claim royalty are quashed. The 3rd respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh demand notice excluding the component of royalty within two WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:109:- months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) Ext.P5 order to the extent it claims royalty in WP(C) No.11397/2017 is quashed. The 4th respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh order excluding the royalty component within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) Exts.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.14425/2023 to the extent they claim royalty prior to 30/12/2019 are quashed.
The 1st respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh demand notice excluding the royalty component for the minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iv) Exts.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.15037/2023 to the extent they claim royalty prior to 30/12/2019 are quashed. The 1st respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh demand notice excluding the royalty component for the minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019 within WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:110:- two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:111:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36843 OF 2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO.2/2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 DATED 20/4/2015 EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13/6/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO MR.K.P.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND ANOTHER EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:112:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 254 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER LICENSE DATED 03/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.06.2022 FOR LICENSE FEE OF RS. 120,000 TOWARDS 30,000 METRIC TONNES Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 13.03.2023 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02.05.2023 IN WP(C) NO. 15037/2023 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER EXTENDING THE STAY ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C) NO. 15037/2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CRUSHER UNIT LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 10-07- 2023 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION (C)NO. 15986/2023 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED 26.1 12023 APPEARING IN THE WEBSITE WHEN THE PETITIONER APPLIED FOR `E PASS' Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REGARDING TRANSIT PASS Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE FROM 11-05-2020 TO 10-05-2021 BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE FROM 23-06-2021 TO 22-06-2022 BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF DEALER'S LICENSE DATED 27-06- 2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 05-09-2023 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 20- WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:113:- 01-2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE DATED 27/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPIES OF THE TR5 RECEIPT NUMBERS 0567447 AND 0567446, DATED 30/06/2022 ISSUED TO THE SON OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT ON 06/08/2022 IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TAKEN ON
27/10/2023 BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/11/2023
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
09/10/2023,CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED -
02/08/2023, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF DEALERS LICENCE.
EXHIBIT R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/11/2023 IN WP(C) 15037/2023.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P16 A true copy of the deed No.912/1/2017 dated 29-03-2017 of Thirurangadi SRO wherein the WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:114:- crusher unit of the writ petitioner is situated.
Exhibit P17 A true copy of the deed No.3035/1/2017 dated 16-11-2017 of Thirurangadi SRO wherein the quarry of the writ petitioner is situated. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:115:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 14425 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03.11.2023 SENIOR GEOLOGISTS ISSUED TO VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., KERALA REQUESTING TO CARRY OUT REVENUE RECOVERY OF RS.1,43,00440/- (ONE CRORE FOURTY THREE LAKHS FOUR HUNDRED FORTY ONLY) TOWARDS THE DEMAND OF ROYALTY Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-12-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-12-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6-1- 2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO. 1 & 2IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 DATED 20-4-2015 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RAJIV SARIN V STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS REPORTED IN 2011 (8) SCC 708 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02-05- 2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.15037/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,KANNAMANGALAM EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1st WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:116:- RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT ON 14/12/2021 IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/01/20222 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1st RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/6/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1st RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ORDINANCE OF 2019 (ORDINANCE 43 OF 2019) EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.4 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF ORDINANCE No.12 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.23 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.64 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.11 OF 2021 EXHIBIT R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.91 OF 2021 EXHIBIT R1(n) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.124 OF 2021 EXHIBIT R1(o) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) No. 16/2020/ID DATED 12/06/2020,WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE No.1420 ON 12/06/2020 EXHIBIT R1(p) TRUE COPIES OF THE GOOGLE SATELLITE MAPS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM FEBRUARY 2016 TO 2023 DOWNLOADED FROM THE GOOGLE EARTH.
EXHIBIT R1(q) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM WHERE MINERALS WERE UNAUTHORISEDLY EXTRACTED. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:117:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15037 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021 Exhibit P4 TRANSLATED COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 16.11.2017 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 REPORTED IN TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST [2013(9) SCC 725] Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543 OF 2000 PREVENTING COLLECTION OF ROYALTY Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO 64266/2023 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) A true copy of the Certificate issued by the District Collector Malappuram in Form 25 Exhibit R2(b) A true copy of the demand notice in Form 1 dated 13.03.2023 Exhibit R2(c) A true copy of the demand notice before attachment of unmovable properties in Form 10 dated 13.03.2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH SKETCH DATED 13-04-2023 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 4/2023 IN OS NO.
35/2023, HON'BLE MANJERI SUB COURT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER GRANITE AS MENTIONED IN WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:118:- WP(C) NO. 15037/2023 Annexure-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST (SQUAD) DATED 15.09.2025 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:119:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15986 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRANSLATED COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 17.11.2017 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE FROM 11-05-2020 TO 10-05-2021 BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE FROM 23-06-2021 TO 22-06- 2022 BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 11-05-2020 PAID BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 23-06-2021 PAID BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 24-06-2022 PAID BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P. ( C ) NO. 15037/2023 DATED 2ND MAY 2023 PETITIONER Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN IA NO. 1 & 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE DATED 27/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPIES OF THE TR5 RECEIPT NUMBERS 0567447 AND 0567446, DATED 30/06/2022 ISSUED WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:120:- TO THE SON OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT ON 06/08/2022 IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 27/10/2023 IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TAKEN ON 27/10/2023 BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.38/2023/ID DATED 31/03/2023 PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NO.1231 DATED 31/03/2023.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER GRANITE Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH SKETCH DATED 13-04-2023 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 4/2023 IN OS NO.
35/2023, HON'BLE MANJERI SUB COURT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE BEARING NO.
400901/RPTL20/GPO/2023/6879 DATED 10-07-2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT BY THE KANNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR STOCKING AND SELLING AND/OR PROCESSING OF MINERALS DATED 03-04-2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. D/L REGI. NO. 01/2019-2020/ GR/DOM/M-1137/2019 UNDER THE KERALA MINERALS (PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL MINING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:121:- RULES 2015 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 09/10/2023,CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P12 A true copy of the circular issued by the Mining and Geology Department regarding the Dealers' License Movement Permit Exhibit P13 A true copy of the message received by the petitioner from the official website of the respondent dated 26-11-2023 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:122:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 11397 OF 2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 19-01-2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-01-2017 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER, THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND WITNESSES EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-02-2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4760/2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REVIEW PETITION NO.190/2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4760/2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-03-2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP© NO.25006/2015 DATED 14/12/2016 EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SIRAJUDHEEN V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR REPORTED IN 2017 KHC 2703 DATED 8.2.2017 WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:123:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38526 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 16/04/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY, ALAKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RETAINING WALL TO THE FAMILY PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY PHOTOGRAPH OF THE REMAINING BOULDERS KEPT IN THE OTHER PART OF THE FAMILY PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO.
DCKNR/5347/2021-D4 DATED 04/11/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT BEARING REF. NO. RBML/KL/20-21/NRO/LOI-008 DATED 04/02/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RELIANCE BP MOBILITY LTD. COCHIN.
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF EXHIBIT P-1 SITE.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. DOC/M-
CAMP/2023 DATED 09/05/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KANNUR. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P-7 NOTICE.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/08/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KANNUR.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/09/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXT. P-9 NOTICE.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18/09/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KANNUR.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/08/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 27891/2017 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 08/07/2013 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THRESSIAMMA JACOB WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:124:- V. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY & OTHERS REPORTED IN 2013 9 SCC 725.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) BILL, 2021 WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AS BILL NO. 59 IN THE 15TH KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:125:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10670 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR RS.
7,80,000/- DATED 18.06.2020 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 02- 02-2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DATED 02-02- 2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.04.2023 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.05.2023 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 TITLED TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST REPORTED IN 2013 (3) KLT 275(SC) Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN I.A. NO. 1 & 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543 OF 2000; PREVENTING COLLECTION OF ROYALTY Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NOS. 64272/2023, 70247/2023 AND 64266/2023 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4540-4548/2000 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP© NO.
15037/2023Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
15037/2023RESPONDENT EXHIBITS WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:126:- Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the letter No.DOM/M-1236/2019, Dated 31/08/2021.
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the letter from Village Officer, Kannamangalam, dated, 11/11/2021.
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the mahassar, dated 15/01/2022. Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the mahassar, dated 21/06/2022. WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:127:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43302 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-11-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED VIZ.
DOCUMENT NO. 177/1/2020 DATED 15-01-2020 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 TITLED TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST REPORTED IN 2013 (3) KLT 275(SC) Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO. 1 & 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO 64266/2023 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP© NO.
15037/2023Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
15037/2023Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-03- 2024 IN WP© NO. 10670/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT