Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)

Thressiamma Jacob vs Geologist, District Office Of The Dept. ... on 2 August, 1999

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.

Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co vs Union Of India on 9 January, 1996

In regard to the rest of the aspects, the order of the court below is confirmed subject to the rider that insofar as interest on solatium is concerned, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the same from 19.09.2001, i.e., the date of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India . We also make it clear that in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court (3 and 4 supra), the appellants- claimants are not entitled for any interest from the date of taking possession inasmuch as possession was taken even prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, the claimants are at liberty to pursue the remedies, which the law permits, for claiming rents/damages from the date they were dispossessed and till the date of the issuance of draft notification. The appeal of the State in LAAS No.1685 of 2005 shall stand disposed of as a sequel to the findings in the aforementioned appeal of the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1784 - Full Document
1