Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.04 seconds)
K.H. Nallappa S/O Hanumappa vs The Secretary Department Of ... on 10 November, 2006 cites

Amritlal Nathubhai Shah And Others vs Union Government Of India And Another on 24 August, 1976

16. The Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Ors v. Union Government of India and Anr. has held that, the State Government is the owner of minerals within its territory and the minerals vest in it. The State Government had the inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. No person has any right to exploit it otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 10 of the Act and Chapters II, III and IV of the Rules, deal with the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in the land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to require that the restrictions imposed by Chapter II, III or IV of the Rules would be applicable even if the state Government itself wanted to exploit a mineral for, as has been stated, it was its own property. There is therefore no reason why the State Government could not, if it so desired, reserve any land for itself, for any purpose, and such reserved land would then not be available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease to any person. Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 17 do not cover the entire field, of the authority of refusing to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to any one else and do not deal with the State Government's authority to reserve an area for itself. The authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the minerals within its territory, which vest in it. But quite apart from that, we find that Rule 59 of the Rules, which have been made under Section 13 of the Act, clearly contemplates such reservation by an order of the State Government. That rule deals with the availability of areas for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease in such cases. As the areas had been reserved by the State Government for the purpose stated in its notification and as those lands did not become available again for the grant of a prospecting license or a mining lease, the State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the applications of the appellants under Rule 60 as premature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 100 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1   2 Next