Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.35 seconds)The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Duvvuru Balarami Reddy on 2 April, 1962
Another Constitution Bench, in State of A.P. v. Balaram Reddy, , held that the mere fact that the person is holder of an Inam grant would not by itself establish that the Inam grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to the surface rights. In that case, it was held that the mica mining lease granted by Shrotriemdar who had no right in the mineral would be of no legal effect and the lessee cannot put forward the lease for obtaining mining
lease from the government under the Mineral Concession Rules. His Lordship K. Venkatsami, J. as he then was, in the Division Bench Judgment referred to above, further observed as follows:
Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 16 September, 1966
8. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Raja Anand v. State of U.P, , was considering the question whether the appellant had subsoil and mineral rights in the area in dispute and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the minerals including the limestone in the area. Their Lordships, on the basis of two sanads granted by Mr. Warren Hastings, held that there is no reservation of mineral rights in favour of the Government and that in the absence of any reservation in the grant, minerals necessarily pass with the rights to the surface. This view was expressed on the interpretation and the legal effects of the sanads concerned in that case. Their Lordships ultimately concluded that in the light of the interpretation of the two sanads dated October 9, 1781 and December 10, 1803 supported by the subsequent events, proceedings and conduct of the parties over a long period of time, they are of the opinion that the appellant is the owner of all the minerals of subsoil rights of Pargana of Agori and therefore, overruled the view of the High Court. Hence, this judgment will not support the case of the claimants herein.
Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 February, 1939
In Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, AIR 1939 PC 98, their lordships of the Privy Council held that the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must be determined in reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably except to obtain from a willing purchaser. A land having potentialities had to be valued by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put to in future. Their lordships further observed as follows:
Additional Special Land Acquisition ... vs P. Anantha Bhat on 27 March, 1972
In Addition Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Anatha Bhat, AIR 1972 Mys 815, a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court held that the principle of capitalisation of the rental declared by the landlord of the land with a quarry should be adopted while determining the value of the land and not on the basis of the total quantity of granite actually available on it. The Division Bench held that it is incorrect to compute the value of the land and the quarry separately and awarding compensation in regard to both. The value of that portion of the land on which the quarry is situated consists entirely of the value of such quarry to the owner. If a land is a granite quarry to the owner. If a land is a granite quarry on it, it cannot be an agricultural land at the same time. Estimating the value of the quarry in question on the basis of quantum of metal available is highly impracticable and unreasonable besides producing a grossly misleading and enamolus result.
The Special Tahsildar, Land ... vs Kamalagangi Reddy And Others on 17 February, 1989
In Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition v. K. Reddy, , it was held that
in determining the market value of the land, the Court is entitled to go into the Special adaptability as one of the components for determination of the market value of the land, but it cannot award market value separately for the subsoil rights.
Sashi Bhushan Misra vs Raja Jyoti Prashad Singh Deo on 8 December, 1916
" As a matter of fact, the extract we have made from the Board's Standing Orders itself indicates that although a holder on a ryotwari tenant is entitled to work minerals on his land, it is subject to the liability to pay therefor a separate assessment in addition to the usual assessment for surface cultivation. The separate additional assessment is the seigniorage, or royalty which the Government is entitled to collect for the working of the minerals. That shows that the state is entitled to the whole of the mineral rights under the surface, and not merely a part in the holding under ryotwari tenure. That is view of Srinivasan, J. and we see no reason to differ. It is true that the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 make threefold classification in Chapters IV, V and VI, namely, the lands in which minerals vest in the Government, lands in which minerals vest in a person other than the government; and lands in which the minerals vest partly in Government and partly in private persons. In respect of the last category, the proviso to Rule 53 makes it clear that the dead rent and royalty payable in respect of minerals which partly vest in the government and partly in Private persons shall be shred by the government and by the person in proposition to the Sharers they have in the minerals. But the point is whether Minerals have vested in the ryotwari Pattadar, The references mentioned above do not enable us to hold that the minerals are so vested in the pattadar." (Italics Supplied)
Their lordships went on to consider the case of Inam or a permanent estate and held, following the decision of the privy council in Sashi Bhushan Misra v. Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo, AIR 1916 PC 191, that a grant by a Zamindar of a tenure at a fixed rent even if the tenure was permanent, heritable and transferable, it will not carry a right to the minerals under the land granted unless there was express evidence that the grant included them.
Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran,(Ujjain ... vs Tarachand & Anr. Etc on 12 July, 1996
13. All the claimants, in their claim statements, have uniformly and clearly claimed that the patta land is far way, whereas the adjacent land in S. No. 522/1 measuring and extent of 1.75 acres has been sold for Rs.19,690 through Document No.49/84. Thus, the claimants themselves have assessed the market value of their lands at Rs.11,000. Of course, they claim that it is only the surface value. On the other hand, they also admit that adjoining land has been sold at the same rate, which would reflect the market value of their land in that area. The Supreme Court, in Ujjain Villas Pradhikaran v. Tarachand, , has held that notwithstanding the amendment to section 25 of the Act, it would always be open to a party to claim a particular amount and having claimed at that rate, the Court cannot grant compensated higher than the amount claimed by the party. It would be obvious that when a party claims compensation at a particular rate, he assesses the market value of the land at that particular rate and seeks compensation on that basis. Since we have found that the claimants are not the owners of the minerals and the subsoil rights, they are entitled for compensation only in reference to the land.