Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
J.K. Eint Works vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 December, 1998 cites

Krishna Brick Field vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 17 May, 1971

5. In State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., relied upon by Sri Bharadwaj, we find that in paragraph 7 of the judgment, the question as to whether brick-earth is a minor mineral was not disputed. What was urged therein was that it is not any of the mines or minerals covered by Section 41 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 1887. Here the question urged stands already settled not only by the decision in M/s. Ram Brick Field (supra), but also by an earlier judgment in Sharma and Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 All 386, holding that 'brick earth' is a minor mineral within the meaning of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and every person would have to pay the royalty for extracting earth for manufacture of bricks. There two clear cut decisions of Division Benches are binding on us, specially when against the latter decision even the Supreme Court did not grant special leave on 13.10.1986.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bhagwan Dass vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 March, 1976

4. We find substance in the arguments of Sri Bisaria. The Division Bench judgment rendered by our own High Court had considered the questions raised in this writ petition and has answered in negative. While answering the questions, it has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh. AIR 1976 SC 1393, and held that the rights of the former zamindars in the mines and minerals were extinguished with the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 and that the right to the minerals had passed on to the State as a consequence of the Act aforementioned as a result the State is owner of the minerals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Sharma & Co. And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 April, 1975

5. In State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., relied upon by Sri Bharadwaj, we find that in paragraph 7 of the judgment, the question as to whether brick-earth is a minor mineral was not disputed. What was urged therein was that it is not any of the mines or minerals covered by Section 41 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 1887. Here the question urged stands already settled not only by the decision in M/s. Ram Brick Field (supra), but also by an earlier judgment in Sharma and Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 All 386, holding that 'brick earth' is a minor mineral within the meaning of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and every person would have to pay the royalty for extracting earth for manufacture of bricks. There two clear cut decisions of Division Benches are binding on us, specially when against the latter decision even the Supreme Court did not grant special leave on 13.10.1986.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1