Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Mysore vs Swamy Satyanand Saraswati, ... on 31 March, 1971

Ambee India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Rao Raja Jamirsinhji Dolatsinhji And ... on 23 September, 1971

It is this decision which is followed even in the latest decision in State of Mysore v. Swamy Satyanand Saraswati, AIR 1971 SC 1569, at p.1574. That was also not a Crown grant conveying proprietary interest in the soil. The Nizam had given the grant to one Navab who had created the lease in question. Therefore, their Lordships at page 1574 applied those principles which their Lordships of the Privy Council had evolved in the context of Zamindars who had proprietary interest in the soil and who created a subordinate interest. In such cases their Lordships held that so far as the sub-soil rights were concerned, they could only pass to the grantor, if they were conferred as such by the grant or if it could be inferred from the grant that sub-soil rights were also included therein. Their lordships also pointed out that what was to be considered in each case was the purpose for which the lands were leased or an interest created therein with all the clauses which throw any light on the question as to whether the grantor purported to include his rights to the subsoil in the grant when there was no express mention of it. If the lease shows that the purpose of the grant was to allow the user of the surface only it would be wrong to presume that sub-soil rights were also covered thereby. The Patta in that case amply demonstrated that what was in contemplation,of the parties at the time of the grant in 1930 was the cultivation thereof or grazing cattle thereon. The grantor was even careful to reserve the right to fruit-bearing trees. It would be a strange construction to hold that although the grantor expressly excluded such trees from his grant, he must be taken to have parted with his sub-soil rights by implication. Therefore, these decisions which are in the light of such limited grant of tenures which do not convey proprietary interest in the soil, express words would be necessary for passing sub-soil rights. These decisions could not apply to the present case where the grant is not from the Zamindar creating any subordinate tenure or a lease interest reserving something for him but is a proprietary sovereign grant, granting all kinds of revenue from these lands and making no reservation whatever in that connection.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Muddeereswara Mining Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 March, 1993

In State of Mysore v. Swamy Satyanand Saraswati (decd) by his L. Rs., , it was held that granite is a mineral and, therefore, when land is granted for a particular purpose such as cultivation of the land, the grant would not include the grant of a right to the mineral. We have already noted that even under section 35E of the Act, Parliament treated some of the minerals and ores under a single category of "minerals". This is a strong indication of Parliament's intention as to the manner in which it would normally describe the particular subject-matter in case is to be confined to some of the goods only. In the absence of any such specification of the several kinds of minerals, we do not think it proper for us to limit the scope of the term, only because the said term is found along with the term "ores".
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

J & P Sand And Aggregates International ... vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2021

In State of Mysore v. Swamy Satyanand Saraswati, Religious Preacher, Raichur (1971) 2 SCC 88, in the context of deciding a similar question as to whether a grant would take within its scope the subsoil rights, the Apex Court took the view that it would be wholly unrealistic to construe a grant as conferring the subsoil rights by implication merely because there is no mention of it in the grant. It was also held by the Apex Court in the said case that what is to be considered in cases of this nature is the purpose for which the grant is created and if the instrument indicates that the purpose of the grant is to allow the user of the surface only, it would be wrong to presume that subsoil rights were also conveyed thereby. Paragraph 12 of the judgment in the said case reads thus;
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P B Kumar - Full Document

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements ... vs Shanmughavel Chettiar And 19 Others on 23 January, 2001

In State of Mysore v. Swami Satyanand Saraswati, , the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue as to whether the Pattadar was entitled to subsoil rights by virtue of the grant of patta in favour of their predecessor-in-interest and as a consequence thereof, become entitled to compensation for acquisition of a large block of land. In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next