Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Thressiamma Jacob vs Geologist, District Office Of The Dept. ... on 2 August, 1999

A.P. Small Scale Granite Industries ... vs The Government Of A.P. Industries & ... on 9 September, 2002

99. The decision of the Kerala High Court in Thressiamma Jacob vs. District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology (supra) has also no application to the case on hand. That was a case where the question for consideration is regarding the royalty payable by the petitioners on minerals extracted from the properties belonging to them. The case of the petitioners is that the properties are situated in Malabar area of the State and that the petitioners are the owners of lands on jenmon right and therefore the soil and minerals underneath belong to them and therefore the Government has no right to demand royalty when minerals are extracted. The petitioners were opposed by the State contending that the petitioners as jenmies have no right over the minerals and for exploiting the same they are bound to pay royalty to the State.The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court consisting one of us Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, ACJ held that lands in question are not jenmom lands and they are ryotwari patta lands and therefore minerals belong to the Government and royalty has to be paid to the Government for quarrying leases. The said case has no application to the facts on hand.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

K.K.Perumalsamy vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 1 March, 2010

"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been consi0dered by this Court in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Miniting : (SCC Public Prosecutor 122-23 in para 9) "9. The courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High courts routinely entertain such application/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obligerated or ignored."
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 27 - K Chandru - Full Document

The Managing Director vs P.M.Pradeep Kumar on 10 January, 2019

It is to be noted that the L.A.A.No.35/2017 14 dictum laid down in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (supra) that, minerals underneath the soil belong to the Government, was based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob v. District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology : 2000 (2) KLT 162 but the Full Bench decision of this Court now stands reversed by the Supreme Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document

Gem Granites vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2006

Liability in respect of lands situated in the erstwhile Malabar area also came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob v. District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology 2000 (2) KLT 162 and the court held that lands in question in the erstwhile Malabar area are in respect of Ryotwari Pattadars and the Ryotwari Pattadars were not considered as proprietors of the land. The court held that in so far as the lands in the erstwhile Malabar area are concerned the minerals belong to the Government and Royalty has to be paid to the Government for quarrying leases.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

T.Padma Bai And Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer And Rdo, ... on 13 March, 2015

Both these minerals are occurring at the surface and can be exploited by open cast quarrying. The report submitted by PW2 was marked as exhibit A3. His qualification certificate was exhibited as exhibit A19. Based on this evidence, the learned counsel for the claimants while contending that the claimants would have extracted the deposits of clay and lime kanker in the acquired land and would have made good money but for the acquisition, had placed reliance on a decision in Thressiamma Jacob v. Dept. of Mining & Geology (1 supra) in support of the contention that the claimants who are the owners of the acquired land are entitled to the sub soil rights including the clay and lime kanker. A careful analysis of the evidence on this aspect would show that the expert furnished his report in July 2000. According to his report, he had inspected the land and did the field work on 20th May, 2000. But the undisputed evidence on record would show that the land was submerged even by the year 1982. Therefore, it is very much doubtful as to whether there was a possibility by May 2000 for doing field work and scientific investigation in the acquired land and examine the geological set up and lithiology etcetera and also estimate the probable or available reserves of clay and lime kanker and also determine the qualities and values of the same per tonne. When it was suggested to PW2 that he did not visit the acquired land and had not tested it and that he had issued the certificate to help the claimants and that exhibit A3 is a false and fabricated document, he had denied the said suggestions. Be that as it may. The land is having some deposits of clay and lime kanker is not in dispute. Therefore, this additional potential value of the land deserves consideration. On this aspect, the learned Government Pleader contended that the land is not acquired by the Government to extract the available deposits of clay and kanker and that the deposits of minerals etcetera in any land vest in the Government and as per the existing local laws like the A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act and under the provisions of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 the land owner has no proprietary rights over the sub soil and minerals and that the activity of extraction of minerals is regulated by the said Act and that in any view of the matter, the claimants are not having exclusive right to work those minerals and that therefore, the proprietary rights to subsoil consisting of the deposits of clay and kanker vest in the Government and at best, the claimants would be entitled to extract the same with the permission and under a valid licence and at any rate would only be entitled to a share and not the whole of the deposits, if any, in the land.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Ratnamani vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2010

In respect of a land in which there is a granite quarry, the petitioner obtained a quarrying lease for 12 years. Before this Court, in a batch of writ petitions, a question arose as to whether owners of properties are liable to pay royalty in respect of the granite quarried from own properties. That issue was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob v. District Office of Department of Mining and Geology, 2000(2) KLT 162 (F.B) holding that royalty is payable to the Government. The matter has been taken to the Supreme Court and appeal filed is pending there. In the meanwhile, in accordance with the Full Bench decision, the liability of the petitioner for payment of royalty was fixed as Rs. 74,280/- by Ext. P1. Subsequently, that was sought to be revised on the ground that the petitioner has actually quarried a total of 70741cubic metres of granite as against the permitted quantity of 4880 cubic metres. The petitioner challenged that finding in Ext. P5 statutory appeal. Petitioner's grievance now is that the Government is refusing to consider that appeal on the ground that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The Government has passed Exts.P8 and P9 orders to that effect. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document
1