Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)Section 21 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 4A in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
23. But in this case, the said prohibition does not
arise, for reason of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Karnataka Rare Earth, the Division Bench judgment of this
court in Shaju E.D and also the fact that sub-section (5) of
Section 21 of the MMDR Act was not noticed by this Court,
which enables this Court to differ from the earlier view. The
specific provision was not present to the Courts mind nor
perceived by it. "Precedents sub-silentio and without
argument are of no import" {Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Vs. Gurnam Kaur 1989 AIR 38}. The decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India
also takes away the binding-precedent-sheen, of the earlier
judgments rendered by myself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held the specific provision sub-section (5) of Section 21 of
the MMDR to be a stand alone provision, enabling recovery of
any mineral extracted illegally without reference to the Court
26
W.P(C) No.20960 for 2016-T
and connected cases
or without even a confiscation proceeding.
Section 22 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Dijil vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 15 October, 2012
24. Reliance also has been placed on Dijil and
Another v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam Police
Station [2013 (1) KHC 517], which is by another learned
Single Judge, in which the effect of compounding was
considered; which is not the issue raised here.
Thressiamma Jacob & Ors vs Geologist,Dptt.Of Mining & Geology ... on 8 July, 2013
26. Be that as it may, in the instant cases, none of the
petitioners have a case that they excavated the ordinary clay
from their own land. They categorically state in the respective
memorandum that they brought clay from outside into their
property and the source having been not disclosed, the
ownership has to be conceded to the State. On the totality of
the circumstances arising in the above case and the law as
dilated upon; it has to be categorically held that the seizure
29
W.P(C) No.20960 for 2016-T
and connected cases
effected in the instant cases are perfectly valid and the
manufactured bricks are liable to be recovered by the State
under sub-section (5) of Section 21 of MMDR Act; which has
been held to be not a penal provision. It speaks only of
recovery of what is owned by the Government and due to the
Government; which proposition brooks no dispute.