Civil Appeal Nos
840 to 860 of 1975
From the Judgments and orders dated 7 5 74 27 8 74 2 9 74 and 10 9 74 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos
1133 1118 1180 1208 1225 1226 1231 1238 1277 1251135274 and 1188 1198 122174 and LPAs
Nos 395 and 399 of 1974 respectively and Writ Petitions 1309 1318 and 1371 137375 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India M C Bhandare In Case 844 86075 and L N Singhvi In all Writ Petitions and R N Sachthey for the Appellant and Respondents
691 section Gopal Singh and P Keshwa Pillai for the Petitioners in WP 1371 7375
Harbans Singh Marwah for the Petitioners in WP 1371 7375
A K Sen Kapil Sibbal section K Jain and section section Khanduja for the Respondents excepting CAs 852 853 and 85575
Naunit Lal for the Intervener in CA 84575 Ch
Dhyan Singh etc
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
The seventeen appeals before us by the State and by the Director of Industries of Haryana after certification under Article 133 1 a b of the constitution are directed against a Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on Writ Petition of owners of lands and lessees of mineral rights in land seeking reliefs in the nature of Mandamus to enforce fundamental rights conferred by Article 31 2 and to restrain the Government of Haryana from taking any action to implement two notifications void i No 1217 2 1 B II 747622 dated the 20th February 1974 and ii No GIGSPAuc 11733075 C dated the 22nd February 1974 after declaring the Haryana Minerals Vesting of Rights Act 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act 
Under the notification of 20th February 1974 the State Government purported to acquire rights to Saltpetre a minor mineral in the land described in a schedule appended to the notification issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 sub
section i of the Haryana Act
By the notification of 22nd February 1974 the State Government announced to the general public that certain saltpetre bearing areas in the State of Haryana mentioned therein would be auctioned on the dates given there
The notifications have not been placed before us
But from the averments in the statements on behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents in the affidavits supporting their respective cases in proceedings for a stay of the operation of the High Court s judgment it appears that the intention of the State was to acquire Saltpetre deposits in lands whose owners had granted mining leases claimed by petitioners in the High Court to be subsisting
The auctions advertised were probably of fresh lessee rights
Whether the auctions were to be of ownership or lessee rights in lands the result was that one owner or one lessee was to be substituted by another in each case as a result of acquisition and sale
The State was to get the difference between the price of acquisition and amount realised on sale of each part sold
The apparent effect of mere change of owners or lessees was that the State of Haryana would benefit financially from the acquisitions and sales although the object of the Haryana Act was said to include conservation as well as scientific exploitation of mineral resources
The case of the appellant State also seemed to be that the owners of lands had haphazardly created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1954 made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act 67 of 1957 hereinafter 692 referred to as the Central Act 
Learned Counsel for the appellant State contended that the Haryana Act was only meant to supplement and not supplant the Central Act
The State claimed to be dealing with lessee rights under the Central Act and not under the Haryana Act at all
The case of the petitioners in the High Court was Firstly that the Haryana Act was beyond the competence of the State Legislature inasmuch as the field in which this Act operated was necessarily occupied already by the provisions of the Central Act enacted under entry No 54 of the Union List List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads as follows 54 Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest
Secondly that the purported acquisition under the Haryana Act offended the provisions of Article 312 inasmuch as it was neither for a public purpose nor for adequate compensation the provision for compensation in the Act being according to the petitioners illusory
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned notifications after declaring the Act to be ultra vires
It also held that the Haryana Act violated Article 312
It found the compensation provided by the Haryana Act to be grossly low and illusory although its view was that judging from the statement of reasons and objects of the Haryana Act a public purpose was made out
The stated reasons and objects of the Haryana Act showed that the acquisition was to be made to protect the mineral potentialities of the land and to ensure their proper development and exploitation on scientific lines
If this was the actual purpose behind the Haryana Act it did not materially differ from that which could be said to lie behind the Central Act
The real question however was not whether any of the purposes of the two Acts were common but whether the provisions of the Central Act so operated as necessarily to exclude in carrying out their objects the operation of the State Act
The High Court had held that in view of the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Central Act and decisions of this Court in the Hingir Rampur Coal Co Ltd  Ors
vs The State of Orissa  Ors State of West Bengal vs Union of India State of Orissa vs M A Tulloch  Co and Baijnath Kedia vs The State of Bihar the field covered by the impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central Legislation so that the State Act had to be held to be inoperative and void for repugnancy
Section 2 of the Central Act lays down It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the 693 regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided
Section 3a of this Act says  minerals  includes all minerals except mineral oils Section 3c reads  mining lease  means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations and includes a sub lease granted for such purpose Section 3d enacts  mining operations  means any operations undertaken for the purpose of mining any mineral Section 3e elucidates  Minor minerals  means building stones gravel ordinary clay ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral Section 3 g indicates  prospecting licence  means a licence granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operations Section 3h enacts  prospecting operations  means any operations under taken for the purpose of exploring locating or proving mineral deposits Section 3i lays down the expressions mine  and owner  have the meanings assigned to them in the 
Sections 4 to 9 of the Central Act deal with General Restrictions on Prospecting and Mining operations
Section 4 indicates that all prospecting and mining operations will be governed by the Central Act
But Section 4A introduced by Section 2 of the Central Act 56 of 1972 lays down 4A1 Where the Central Government after consultation with the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development so to do it may request the State Government to make a premature termination of a mining lease in respect of any mineral other than a minor mineral and on receipt of such request the State Government shall make an order making a premature termination of such mining lease and granting a fresh mining lease in favour of such Government company or corporation owned or controlled by Government as it may think fit
694 Section 5 concerns restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases
It shows that these will be granted by the State Government and the Central Government was to give its approval in certain specified cases only
Section 6 indicates areas for which a prospecting licence or mining lease or more than one licence or lease may be granted in any one State
The Central Government could make exceptions to this rule
Section 7 limits duration of a prospecting licence which is evidently to be granted by the State Government to one year for mica and two years for other minerals subject to renewal and in the case of scheduled minerals subject to approval by Central Government for each grant or renewal
Similarly Section 8 provides periods of grant and renewal of leases by the State Government
Section 9 deals with Royalties in respect of mining leases
Section 9A is concerned with the Dead rent to be paid by the lessee to the State Government subject to the regulation of it by the Central Government
Sections 10 to 12 of the Central Act contain procedure for obtaining prospecting licences or mining leases in land in which mineral rights vest in the Government
It is true that it is not specified here in which Government rights to minerals in any land vest
But the machinery provided for applications and for maintaining the registers of applications for prospecting licences and mining leases shows that it is the State Government which will be concerned with this matter subject to the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Act
Rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases are to be made by the Central Government according to the detailed provisions of Section 13 and Section 13A Section 14 however lays down 14
The provisions of Sections 4 to 13 inclusive shall not apply to quarry leases mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals
Section 15 makes it clear that it is the State Government which has the power to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith
Section 161 of the Central Act enacts 161a All mining leases granted before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Amendment Act 1972 if in force at such commencement shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder within six months from such commencement or such further time as the Central Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf b Where the rights under any mining lease granted by the proprietor of an estate or tenure before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Amendment Act 1972 have vested on or 695 after the 25th day of October 1949 in the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of any Provincial or State Legislature which provides for the acquisition of estates or tenures or provides for agrarian reform such mining lease shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder within six months from the commencement of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Amendment Act 1972 or within such further time as the Central Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf
Section 162 provides for rules to be made by the Central Government to carry out the purposes of Section 161
Special powers of Central Government in respect of mining operations in certain lands are provided for in Section 17
Clause 1 of this Section reads 171 The provisions of this Section shall apply in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State or any other person
Clause 2 of Section 17 provides for undertakings by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government of prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease 
Section 173 makes the Central Government liable in such cases to pay the State Government prospecting fee royalty surface rent or dead rent as the case may be at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under a prospecting licence or mining lease
Section 174 contains powers of the Central Government in consultation with the State Government to prohibit grant of prospecting or mining leases in any area specified in a notification
Section 18 dealing with the development of minerals enacts 181 It shall be the duty of the Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India and for that purpose the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make such rules as it thinks fit
2 In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely a the opening of new mines and the regulation of mining operations in any area b the regulation of the excavation or collection of minerals from any mine c the measures to be taken by owners of mines for the purpose of beneficiation of ores including the provision of suitable contrivances for such purpose 696 d the development of mineral resources in any area e the notification of all new borings and shaft sinkings and the preservation of bore hole records and specimens of cores of all new bore holes f the regulation of the arrangements for the storage of minerals and the stocks thereof that may be kept by any person g the submission of samples of minerals from any mine by the owner thereof and the manner in which and the authority to which such samples shall be submitted and the taking of samples of any minerals from any mine by the State Government or any authority specified by it in that behalf and h the submission by owners of mines of such special or periodical returns and reports as may be specified and the form in which and the authority to which such returns and reports shall be submitted
3 All rules made under this section shall be binding on the Government
It should be noted that Section 18 set out above empowers the Central Government to make rules for the conservation and development of minerals in any part of India
The State Government is not even entitled under Central Act to be consulted about this subject but it is bound by the rules made on it by the Central Government
The term Government according to Section 323 of the General Clauses Act includes both the Central Government and a State Government
Section 18A sub section 1 inserted by Section 11 of the Act of 56 of 1972 does however require consultation with the State Government on one matter
It says 18A1 Where the Central Government is of opinion that for the conservation and development of minerals in India it is necessary to collect as precise information as possible with regard to any mineral available in or under any land in relation to which any prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted whether by the State Government or by any other person the Central Government may authority or the Geological Survey of India or such other authority or agency as it may specify in this behalf to carry out such detailed investigations for the purpose of obtaining such information as may be necessary Provided that in the cases of prospecting licences or mining leases granted by a State Government no such authorisation shall be made except after consultation with the State Government
697 The remaining clauses 2 to 6 of Section 18A deal with the consequences of the authorisation of investigation by the Central Government and matters connected therewith
The proviso to clause 6 dealing with the costs of investigation enacts Provided that where the State Government or other person in whom the minerals are vested or the holder of any prospecting licence or mining lease applies to the Central Government to furnish to it or him a copy of the report submitted under sub section 5 that State Government or other person or the holder of a prospecting licence or mining lease as the case may be shall bear such reasonable part of the costs of investigation as the Central Government may specify in this behalf and shall on payment of such part of the costs of investigation be entitled to receive from the Central Government a true copy of the report submitted to it under sub section 5
Miscellaneous provisions are contained in Sections 19 to 33 of the Central Act
Here Section 19 lays down 19
Any prospecting licence or mining lease granted renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect
Section 20 enacts 20
The provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall apply in relation to the renewal after the commencement of this Act of any prospecting licence or mining lease granted before such commencement as they apply in relation to the renewal of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted after such commencement
Section 21 provides for penalties for anyone who contravenes the provisions of Section 41 of the Act
Among these miscellaneous provisions is Section 25 recast by Section 14 of Act 56 of 1972
It lays down that Any rent royalty tax fee or other sum due to the Government under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under the terms and conditions of any prospecting licence or mining lease may on a certificate of such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue
Section 25 sub section 2 shows that these dues are to be specified either by the Act or by the Rules made thereunder or under the terms and conditions of any prospective licence or mining lease
The control however is of officers appointed by the State Government
Section 26 provides for delegation of the powers of the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette to either the State Government or any officer or authority either subordinate to the 698 Central Government or the State Government
Section 30 shows that the orders made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of powers by or under the Central Act are revisable by the Central Government
Hence the provisions of the Central Act show that subject to the overall supervision of the Central Government the State Government has a sphere of its own powers and can take legally specified actions under the Central Act and rules made thereunder
Thus the whole field of control and regulation under the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 cannot be said to be reserved for the Central Government
As indicated above there have been some very significant changes by the Central Act 56 of 1972
These seem to us to make it necessary to reconsider the effect of the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Central Act as interpreted by the decisions of this Court so far
Before outlining the provisions of Haryana Act we may indicate the position resulting from the four decisions mentioned above relied upon by Punjab  Haryana High Court
In Hingir Rampur Coal Co s case supra the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act 1952 was questioned on the ground that it authorised the State of Orissa to impose a cess on the valuation of the minerals
The State of Orissa had relied upon entries 23 and 66 of the State List List II of the Seventh Schedule
Entry 23 of List II is Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union
And entry 66 of List II is Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list but not including fees taken in any court
The petitioning Coal Co had relied on entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule empowering the Parliament alone to impose excise duty on tobacco and other manufactured goods with the exception of Alcoholic liquor opium Indian hemp and other narcotics
It had also cited in support of its case entry 52 of List I of Industries the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest
Furthermore the Coal Company relied on entry 54 of List I relating to Mines and mineral development already set out above
This Court held that the imposition of the cess under the State enactment was really a fee falling within entries 23 and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
It held that the State Act was neither hit by entry 54 read with Mines and Minerals Development Act 3 of 1948 nor by entry 52 of List I
The decision in that case turned on an interpretation of Article 372 of the Constitution
It was held that a declaration in the Act of 1948 could not be equated with a declaration made by the Parliament in a post Constitution enactment in terms of entry 54 of List I
It was therefore not really a decision on the effect of Section 2 of the Central Act 67 of 1957
699 The State of West Bengal vs Union of India supra was the case of a suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union
It was contended on behalf of West Bengal State that the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act 1957 enacted by Parliament proposing to acquire certain coal bearing areas in the State did not apply to areas owned by the State itself and in the alternative that even if it did so apply to areas owned by the State of West Bengal it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament because entry 42 in the Concurrent List List III did not authorise an acquisition of property already vested in the State although this entry in the Concurrent List merely reads acquisition and requisitioning of property
It was urged there that without a constitutional amendment Parliament could not acquire the property of the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the impugned Act
It was held there at p 417  the power of the Union to legislate in respect of property situate in the States even if the States are regarded qua the union as Sovereign remains unrestricted and the State property is not immune from its operation
Exercising powers under the diverse entries which have been referred to earlier the Union Parliament could legislate so as to trench upon the rights of the State in the property vested in them
If exclusion of State property from the purview of Union legislation is regarded as implicit in those entries in List I it would be difficult if not impossible for the Union Government to carry out its obligations in respect of matters of national importance
Learned Counsel for the appellant State before us has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal supra for contending that the powers of the State of Haryana to acquire land are not impaired by the declaration contained in the Central Act
He cited the rule of construction stated there as follows at p 393 Unless a law expressly or by necessary implication so provides a State is not bound thereby
This well recognised rule applies to the interpretation of the Constitution
There fore in the absence of any provision express or necessarily implying that the property of the State could be acquired by the Union the rights claimed by the Union to legislate for acquisition of State property must be negatived
 Applying this rule he contends that the powers of the State Government to acquire land are left intact by the Central Act 67 of 1957
Learned Counsel for the respondent however relied on another passage in the State of West Bengal s case supra to submit that legislative power for acquisition of minerals for their development and conservation must be deemed to be vested in Parliament now even if the mineral resources are situated in the State
He quoted at p 436 By making the requisite declarations under Entries 54 of List I the Union Parliament assumed power to regulate 700 mines and minerals and thereby to deny to all agencies not under the control of the Union authority to work the mines
It could scarcely be imagined that the Constitution makers while intending to confer an exclusive power to work mines and minerals under the control of the Union still prevented effective exercise of that power by making it impossible compulsorily to acquire the land vested in the States containing minerals
The effective exercise of the power would depend if such an argument is accepted not upon the exercise of the power to undertake regulation and control by issuing a notification under Entry 54 but upon the will of the State in the territory of which mineral bearing land is situate
Power to legislate for regulation and development of mines and minerals under the control of the Union would by necessary implication include the power to acquire mines and minerals
Power to legislate for acquisition of property vested in the States cannot therefore be denied to the Parliament if it be exercised consistently with the protection afforded by article 31
 In the two cases discussed above no provision of the Central Act 67 of 1957 was under consideration by this Court
Moreover power to acquire for purposes of development and regulation has not been exercised by Act 67 of 1957
The existence of power of Parliament to legislate on this topic as an incident of exercise of legislative power on another subject is one thing
Its actual exercise is another
It is difficult to see how the field of acquisition could become occupied by a Central Act in the same way as it had been in the West Bengal s case supra even before Parliament legislates to acquire land in a State
Atleast until Parliament has so legislated as it was shewn to have done by the statute considered by this Court in the case from West Bengal the field is free foe State legislation falling under the express provisions of entry 42 of List III
In State of Orissa vs M A Tulloch  Co supra the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 were considered by this Court directly
In this case the legality of certain demands as fee under the Orissa Act 27 of 1952 the validity of which had been upheld by this Court in Hingir Rampur Coal Co s case supra came up for consideration again in the light of the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957
It was contended on behalf of the State of Orissa that the objects and purposes of the Orissa Act and of the Central Act were entirely distinct and different so that they could validly co exist since neither trespassed into the field of the other
It was pointed out there that this Court had indicated in the Hingir Rampur Coal Co s case supra that if the declaration in the 1948 Act relied upon by the petitioner in that case had been made after our Constitution became operative the position would have been different
Reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Act to hold at p 477 Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the 701 Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other than to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other
But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other
The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not however the only criterion of repugnancy for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance
Where such is the position the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation
In the present case having regard to the terms of section 181 it appears clear to us that the intention of Parliament was to cover the entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argument that until rules were framed there was no inconsistency and no supersession of the State Act
It was also held there at p 478 If by reason of the declaration by Parliament the entire subject matter of conservation and development of minerals  has been taken over for being dealt with by Parliament thus depriving the State of the power which it therefore possessed it would follow that the matter  in the State List is to the extent of the declaration subtracted from the scope and ambit of Entry 23 of the State List
There would therefore after the Central Act of 1957 be no matter in the List  to which the fee could be related in order to render it valid
In Baijnath Kedia s case supra the proviso 2 to Section 102 of the Bihar Land Reforms Amendment Act 1964 Bihar Act 4 of 1965 and a sub rule of Rule 20 added on December 10 1964 by a notification of the Governor to the Bihar Minor Mineral Rules 1961 came up for consideration
Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 the former landlords had ceased to have any interest from the date of vesting so that their rights as lessors under the mining leases granted by them in their estates became vested in the State of Bihar under Section 191 of the Land Reforms Act and by Section 102 of that Act the terms on which the lands were held on leases between the original lessors and lessees became binding on the State Government under the impugned proviso to Section 102 amounting to alteration of the terms of the leases executed by the original lessors the former landlords additional demands were made upon lessees
The State Government had also relied upon a sub rule added to Rule 20 framed under Section 15 of the Central Act 67 of 1957
This Court after examining the relevant provisions of the 702 Central Act held relying on Hingir Rampur Coal Co s case supra and M A Tulloch Co s case supra as follows at p 113 The declaration is contained in section 2 of Act 67 of 1957 and speaks of the taking and the control of the Central Government the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself
We have thus not to look outside Act 67 of 1957 to determine what is left within the competence of the State Legislature but have to work it out from the terms of that Act
After referring to what was decided in the earlier cases this Court said at p 114 These two cases bind us and apply here
Since the Bihar State Legislature amended the Land Reforms Act after the coming into force of Act 67 of 1957 the declaration in the latter Act would carve out a field to the extent provided in that Act and to that extent entry 23 would stand cut down
To sustain the amendment the State must show that the matter is not covered by the Central Act
The other side must of course show that the matter is already covered and there is no room for legislation
It added at p 114 115 We have already analysed Act 67 of 1957
The Act takes over the control of regulation of mines and development of minerals to the Union of course to the extent provided
It deals with minor minerals separately from the other minerals
In respect of minor minerals it provides in section 14 that sections 4 13 of the Act do not apply to prospecting licences and mining leases
It goes on to state in section 15 that the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith and that until rules are made any rules made by the State Government regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals which were in force immediately before the commencement of the Act would continue in force
It is admitted that no such rules were made by the State Government
It follows that the subject of legislation is covered in respect of minor minerals by the express words of section 151
Parliament has undertaken legislation and laid down that regulation of the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith must be by rules made by the State Government
Whether the rules are made or not the topic is covered by Parliamentary legislation and to that extent the powers of State Legislature are wanting
Therefore there is no room for State Legislation
703 In Baijnath Kedia s case supra this Court also said at p 116 We have already held that the whole of the legislative field was covered by the Parliamentary declaration read with provisions of Act 67 of 1957 particularly section 15 We have also held that entry 23 of List II was to that extent cut down by entry 54 of List I The whole of the topic of minor minerals became a Union subject
The Union Parliament allowed rules to be made but that did not recreate a scope for legislation at the State level
Therefore if the old leases were to be modified a legislative enactment by Parliament on the lines of section 16 of Act 67 of 1957 was necessary
The place of such a law could not be taken by legislation by the State Legislature as it purported to do by enacting the second Proviso to section 10 of the Land Reforms Act
It will further be seen that Parliament in section 4 of the Act 67 of 1957 created an express bar although section 4 was not applicable to minor minerals
Whether section 4 was intended to apply to minor minerals as well or any part of it applies to minor minerals are questions we cannot consider in view of the clear declaration in section 14 of Act 67 of 1957 that the provisions of sections 4 13 inclusive do not apply
Therefore there does not exist any prohibition such as is to be found in section 41 Proviso in respect of minor minerals
Although section 16 applies to minor minerals it only permits modification of mining leases granted before October 25 1949
In regard to leases of minor minerals executed between this date and December 1964 when Rule 201 was enacted there is no provision of law which enables the terms of existing leases to be altered
A mere rule is not sufficient
Again referring to the earlier decisions it said at p 117 On the basis of those rulings we have held that the entire legislative field in relation to minor minerals had been withdrawn from the State Legislature
We have also held that vested rights could only be taken away by law made by a competent legislature
Mere rule making power of the State Government was not able to reach them
The authority to do so must therefore have emanated from Parliament
The existing provision related to regulation of leases and matters connected therewith to be granted in future and not for alteration of the terms of leases which were in existence before Act 67 of 1957
For that special legislative provision was necessary
As no such parliamentary law had been passed by the second sub rule to Rule 20 was ineffective
It could not derive sustenance from the second Proviso to section 102 of the Land Reforms Act since that proviso was not validly enacted
 The question which arises before us now is whether possibly as a result of the decision of this Court in Baijnath Kedia s case supra the Parliament had not amended the law as we find it in the present 704 Section 16 of the Act 67 of 1957 as amended by Act 56 of 1972 so as to undo its effect
If that amendment is in response to the need pointed out in Baijnath Kedia s case supra would it not cover the provisions of the Haryana Act now before us  The preamble to the Haryana Act states that it is An Act to vest the mineral rights in the State Govt
and to provide for payment of amount to the owners of minerals and for other matters connected therewith
 The crucial section is section 3 of the Haryana Act which runs as follows section 3 Vesting of minerals in State Government 1 The State Government may from time to time by notification acquire the right to any minerals in any land and the right to the minerals specified in the notification shall from the date of its publication vest in the State Government
2 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force on the publication of the notification under sub section 1 the right to the minerals in the land specified in the notification shall vest absolutely in the State Government and the State Government shall subject to the provisions of the  have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment or disposal of such right
3 The right to the minerals in the land includes the right of access to land for the purpose of prospecting and working mines and for the purposes subsidiary thereto including the sinking of pits and shafts erection of plants and machinery construction of roads stacking of minerals and deposits of refuse quarrying and obtaining building and road materials using water and taking timber and any other purpose which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining
4 If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals and if for the proper enjoyment of such right it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in subsection 2 and 3 should be exercised the Collector may by an order in writing subject to such conditions and reservations as he may specify delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned
Other provisions of the Haryana Act are not material
Section 1 merely gives the Act its title and Section 2 deals with definitions
Section 4 relates to compensation
Section 5 provides for references or disputes about compensation to Civil Courts
Section 6 applies Civil procedure to compensation proceedings
Section 7 provides for appeals
Section 8 contains the necessary powers of the State Government to frame rules
These provisions exhaust the Act
705 Saltpetre was declared a minor mineral by notification No 131 65 MII on 21st January 1967
Its deposits are said to have been found in 638 villages of Haryana
It appears that the State of Haryana considered itself to be the owner of these deposits on the strength of entries in the records of rights Wajib ul arz of these villages and used to auction them in accordance with the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1964
But on 25th May 1971 the Punjab  Haryana High Court held on a Writ Petition CW No 1221 of 1971 that unless the mineral deposits are specifically mentioned in the Wajib ul arz of a village as having vested in the State their ownership would still remain vested in the former proprietors mentioned as owners of their lands in a Wajib ul arz
As a result of this decision the right to Saltpetre deposits was found to be vested in individual proprietors of their estates and Gram Panchayats in about 600 out of 638 villages
It is stated that in order to meet this situation the Haryana Act No 48 of 1973 was framed and passed
The President of India gave his assent to it on 6th December 1973
It was thus a logical corollary of land reforms
Apparently there was no conflict between the State and the Union Government on the policy underlying the Act
The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant State were Firstly that the Central Act does not purport to cover or operate upon the power to acquire ownership in minerals which are part of land
The relevant entry for exercise of legislative power to acquire property is entry 42 in the Concurrent List List III of the Seventh Schedule
The Central Act purports to have been made in exercise of the power under entry 54 of List I for regulation and development of mines whereas the Haryana Act operates in the distinct and separate field of acquisition of property
Secondly minerals being part of land in the State within the competence of the State Legislature to legislate upon under entry 18 of the State List List II legislation falling substantially under this head read with entry 23 of the State List and entry 42 of the Concurrent List List III should not be invalidated unless we are compelled to do so
Thirdly entry 54 of List I set out above would naturally cover only those parts of the field of acquisition in accordance with rules of interpretation indicated in State of West Bengal s case supra which are expressly excluded from this special field by the Central Act
Particularly as acquisition belongs to a different head in the concurrent field on which there is neither a Central Act for acquiring ownership of mineral deposits nor any express provision for it in Act 67 of 1957 there could be no question of the exclusion of the power of the State Legislature to pass the impugned Act
There was thus no unavoidable conflict between it and the State Act
Fourthly the impugned Act is protected from any challenge on the ground of inadequacy of compensation or the unreasonableness of the principles contained in Section 41 of the Haryana Act as the 706 acquisition of parts of estates of former proprietors of land falls under Article 31A
On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that the cases before us are covered completely by the decisions of this Court discussed above and in particular by those in Tulloch Co section case supra and Baijnath Kedia s case supra
It is urged that when acquisition is only a means of conservation or development of mineral resources even this field must be held to be necessarily excluded by the declaration in Section 2 and other provisions of Central Act 67 of 1957 which will become unworkable if the provisions of the Haryana Act were permitted to operate
It seems difficult to sustain the case that the provisions of the Central Act would be really unworkable by mere change of ownership of land in which mineral deposits are found
We have to judge the character of the Haryana Act by the substance and effect of its provisions and not merely by the purpose given in the statement of reasons and objects behind it
Such statements of reasons are relevant when the object or purpose of an enactment is in dispute or uncertain
They can never override the effect which follows logically from the explicit and unmistakable language of its substantive provisions
Such effect is the best evidence of intention
A statement of objects and reasons is not a part of the statute and therefore not even relevant in a case in which the language of the operative parts of the Act leaves no room whatsoever as it does not in the Haryana Act to doubt what was meant by the legislators
It is not disputed here that the object and effect of the Haryana Act was to acquire proprietary right to mineral deposits  in land
Its provisions however do not mention leasehold or licensee rights
Obviously this is so because these rights are governed by the Central Act 67 of 1957
As we found nothing in the judgment under appeal or in the arguments advanced by either side to indicate that the effect of Act 56 of 1972 which had amended Act 67 of 1957 had been specifically noticed we considered it necessary to hear further arguments with a view to giving parties an opportunity of showing us how earlier decisions when the provisions introduced by Act 56 of 1972 were not there could be at all helpful in deciding the question now before us
One of the objections taken before us at the further hearing given to the parties was that we should not allow a new point to be argued
We do not think that any new question was allowed by us to be raised simply because we have permitted parties to place their points of view on the same question after taking into account some changes in the Central Act
Indeed we are bound to take judicial notice of the law as it exists after its amendment
We can only apply the law as it exists and not the law as it once was
No party could justifiably complain that it was given an additional opportunity to meet what follows from the amended law even if the effect of the amendment was not noticed earlier
We are particularly impressed by the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 as they now stand
A glance at section 161b shows that the 707 Central Act 67 of 1957 itself contemplates vesting of lands which had belonged to any proprietor of an estate or tenure holder either on or after 25th October 1949 in a State Government under a State enactment providing for the acquisition of estates or tenures in land or for agrarian reforms
The provisions lay down that mining leases granted in such land must be brought into conformity with the amended law introduced by Act 56 of 1972
It seems to us that this clearly means that Parliament itself contemplated State legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Govt
It only required that rights to mining granted in such land should be regulated by the provisions of Act 67 of 1957 as amended
This feature could only be explained on the assumption that Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State Legislatures under entry 18 of List II read with entry 42 of List III
Again Section 17 of the Central Act 67 of 1957 shows that there was no intention to interfere with vesting of lands in the States by the provisions of the Central Act
The only answer given on behalf of the respondents to this contention is that such vesting as it contemplated by Section 161b of the Central Act as it now stands must be of estates of proprietors or lands of tenure holders under some legislation for agrarian reform
We are unable to find any force in this contention
Article 31 A of the Constitution is not confined to legislation for agrarian reform
Agrarian reform is only one of the possible or alternative objects of such acquisition
It need not be the exclusive or only purpose of State legislation contemplated by Section 161 b of the Central Act
And power to legislate for the acquisition of the whole of an estate or tenure would include the power to legislate for any part of it
Writ Petition Nos
1309 to 1318 and 1371 to 1373 of 1975 directed against the provisions of this Act have also been placed before us for arguments and appropriate orders
The petitioners in these cases assert rights as holders of mining leases granted by persons who had been entered as proprietors of estates in the records of rights in various villages
The rights of persons so entered in a Wajib ul arz to mineral deposits in their former lands have been acquired by the State under the Haryana Act
According to the Haryana State the Act was passed so as to inter alia change the law as declared by the Punjab  Haryana High Court in the case reported in AIR 1972 PH p 50
According to the view of the High Court rights in such lands had continued to vest in former owners of estates despite acquisitions of other parts of their estate
The effect of the Haryana Act was it was urged only to change the ownership without interfering with the regulation of leasehold or licensee rights in minerals under the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957
The Haryana Act expressly states that it operates subject to the overriding provisions of Act 67 of 1957
Dr L M Singhvi appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana in the Writ Petitions under Article 32 submits Firstly that the legislative competence of the State Legislature under entry 23 of List II is subjected to entry No 54 of List I only to the extent to which 708 Parliament chooses to take upon itself the regulation of mines and minerals and no more
Secondly in arriving at a decision on the extent to which Parliament has removed regulation and development of mines from State control strict construction ought to be adopted so that without a specific and clear declaration by Parliament ousting the power of State Legislature to deal with vesting of land in the State Government it should not be assumed that the legislative power of the State to acquire what is land had been taken away
Thirdly Parliament having legislated specifically only in order to regulate the grant of mining leases and concessions irrespective of the ownership of the lands in which mining leases and concessions are granted the clear legislative intent of Parliament gathered from the Central Act 67 of 1957 itself also was to exclude the topic of acquisition of ownership and other rights in land apart from those of holders of mining leases and licences from its purview
Fourthly the majority view in the State of West Bengal s case supra should be read in the context of the particular Act considered there under which the Union Govt
had been given powers of acquiring lands belonging to the State of West Bengal
No such Central Act is before us for interpretation
Even if the power was vested in the Parliament to acquire land as an incident of regulation and development of minerals that power not having been exercised at all by Act is of 1957 it was not permissible to assume any conflict between the Central Act 67 of 1957 and the Haryana Act
Fifthly D M Collieries  Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Burdwan Division following 66 CWN p 304AIR  could be relied upon to urge that States had not lost their legislative competence altogether to acquire lands in which mineral rights could be granted
Examples of such acquisitions were section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 Section 52 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953 as amended by Act 22 of 1964 Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act 1957  and 
In any case until Parliament legislates to acquire ownership of mineral deposits in a State this field cannot be said to be occupied merely because of the declaration in Act 67 of 1957 which contains nothing whatsoever about the ownership of minerals
Sixthly the provisions of Act 67 of 1957 also show that the power of granting leases and concessions in respect of mineral deposits is left largely to State Government
There is however one argument advanced on behalf of holders of leases or licences of mining rights which must be upheld
It is that lessee and licensee rights governed by the provisions of Act 67 of 1957 or rules made thereunder are not covered by the Haryana Act
It is clear from Section 32 of the Haryana Act itself that the provisions of this Act are to be read subject to the provisions made by or under the Central Act
Moreover the Haryana Act does not and cannot ipso facto terminate either lessee or licensee rights which were subsisting on the date when the Haryana Act came into force
On the other hand section 9 of the Central Act 709 56 of 1972 which amended section 16 of the Principal Act Central Act 67 of 1957 made it imperative for such lessee rights as existed in estates which had vested in a State Government to be brought into conformity with the Central Act
Obviously therefore if there are any lessee or licensee rights of mining in minor minerals on land which were actually regulated by the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 they will continue
Although this is a legally correct contention it was not shewn to us how the notification of auctions of mining rights affected any subsisting rights of any alleged lessee or licensee
The facts of no individual case were placed before us
We do not know which respondent in the appeal or which petitioner in Writ Petitions before us has any subsisting rights governed by any of the provisions of the Central Act or rules made thereunder
It has also not been shewn to us that any lessee or licensee asked the State Government to carry out any statutory or contractual obligation before he invoked the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court
Thus essential averments to disclose subsisting rights or the locus standi of the petitioners are wanting here
In Writ Petitions No 1309 1318 and 1371 1373 of 1975 the petitioners only assert that they are lessees of minor minerals holding rights under registered leases executed by the owners of minor minerals
But they do not state whether their leases are governed by or have been brought into conformity with the provisions of the Central Act
Annexure A  is the notification dated 10th April 1974 assailed by petitioner in this Court
Its purpose is stated in the following terms In exercise of powers conferred by sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Haryana Mineral Vesting of Rights Act 1973 the Governor of Haryana hereby acquires the right to the minerals mentioned in column 6 of the schedule given below in the land specified in column 5 thereof
The schedule contains a large number of khasra numbers of plots in various villages covered by the notification Another notification of 11th September 1975 challenged by the petitioners in this Court says It is hereby notified for the general public that Minor Mineral quarries of Gurgaon District as per particulars given below will be put to auction on 1 10 1975 in the office of Senior District Industries Officer Faridabad at 10 AM
Thereafter follows the names of 139 villages in Tehsil Gurgaon under the heading Name of Quarry
Under the next heading
Name of the Minor Mineral occur the words Road metal and stone
 710 The notification then proceeds to say The terms and conditions of the auction are given below  i Each bidder shall be required to deposit a sum of Rs 200 in cash as earnest money with the Presiding Officer before participating in the auction
ii The period of contract shall commence from the date of execution of the agreement to the 21st March 1977
iiiOther terms and conditions of auction shall be the same as contained in the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1964 as adopted by Haryana Government
iv The highest bidder shall be entitled to obtain short term permits from the date of auction till the date of acceptance of his bid by the competent authority
Therefore he will not have any right to revoke his officer
Any other information he had from the Senior District Industries Officer
Faridabad
B L MITTAL Director of Industries Haryana
Some of the numbers given in the first notification correspond with the number of plots in respect of which the petitioners allege to be lease holders
A perusal of the petitions and the counter affidavits filed in reply on behalf of the State of Haryana shows that the only dispute between the parties relates to the vesting of ownership rights in a minor mineral in these plots
But the petitioners have come before us as lessees and not as owners
Rights of former owners have been validity terminated by the Haryana Act
We are unable to make out from these petitions how any lessee rights acquired by the petitioners themselves under any law subsist or are affected by the notifications mentioned above
We proceed to record our conclusions as follows 1
The Haryana Minerals Vesting of Rights Act 1973 is valid as it is not in any way repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act 67 of 1957 made by Parliament
Ownership rights could be and have been validity acquired by the Haryana Govt
under the Haryana Act
No rights are shewn by any petitioner before us to have been conferred upon him under any lease or licence executed or brought in accordance with the provision of the Central Act 67 of 1957 but any petitioner either before the High Court or in this Court now before us who can establish any such right governed by the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate Court if so advised as may still be open to him under the law against any such action or Govt
notification as 711 is alleged to infringe that right
We are unable to find any such right in any writ petition as framed now before us
Any petitioner who applies for a writ or order in the nature of a mandamus should in compliance with a well known rule of practice ordinarily first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a Court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established
Accordingly subject to the observations made above we allow Civil Appeals Nos 844 860 of 1975 and set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and dismiss the Writ petitions
We also dismiss the Writ Petitions Nos
1309 1318 and 1371 1373 of 1975 subject to the observations made above filed in this Court
Parties will bear their own costs
PBR Appeal allowed  Petitions dismissed


Summary:
On the strength of entries in the wajib ul arz village administration papers of some villages the State Government considered itself to be the owner of saltpetre deposits
By a notification it declared saltpetre as a minor mineral and auctioned the mines in accordance with the Punjab Minor Minerals Con Cessions Rules 1964 made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act 67 of 1957
In a writ petition the High Court held that unless the mineral deposits were specifically mentioned in the Wajib ul arz of a village as having vested in the State their ownership would still remain vested in the former proprietors according to the record of rights
To meet this situation the State legislature passed the Haryana Minerals Vesting of Rights Act 1973
Since the owners of the lands had haphazardly created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Rules 1964 two notifications were issued with the object of the conservation as well as of scientific exploitation of mineral resources
By one notification the State Government purported to acquire rights to saltpetre in the lands and by the second it announced that certain saltpetre bearing areas would be auctioned
In a writ petition under article 226 the High Court held i that in view of the declaration contained in section 2 of the Central Act the field covered by the impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central legislation so that the State Act was inoperative and void for repugnancy and quashed the two notifications and ii that rights in such lands had continued to vest in the former owners of estates despite acquisitions of other parts of their estates
The respondents in the appeals containded that the declaration in section 2 of the Central Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals would become unworkable if the provisions of the State Act were permitted to operate
While the appeals were pending writ petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32
The petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have asserted rights as holders of mining lesses granted by persons who had been entered as proprietors of estates in the record of rights and that the State under the State Act had wrongly acquired the right to mineral deposits in their former lands
It was contended that the effect of the State Act was only to change the ownership without interfering with the regulation of leasehold or licensee rights in minerals under the Central Act
Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the writ petitions  HELD i The Haryana Minerals Vesting of Rights Act
1973 is valid as it is not in any way repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and 689 Minerals Regulation of Development Act 67 of 1957 made by Parliament
Ownership rights could be and have been validly acquired by the State Government under the State Act
710G ii No rights are shown by any petitioner to have been conferred upon him under any lease or licence executed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act but any petitioner either before the High Court or in this Court who can establish any such right governed by the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate court as may still be open to him under the law against any such action or Government notification as is alleged to infringe that right
710H iii Any petitioner who applied for a writ or order in the nature of a mandamus should in compliance with a well known rule of practice ordinarily first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it had refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established
711B 1
a It is difficult to sustain the respondents  contention that the provisions of the Central Act would be really unworkable by mere change of ownership of land in which mineral deposits were found
The character of the State Act has to be judged by the substance and effect of its provisions and not merely by the purpose given in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
706C b The provisions of the Central Act show that subject to the overall supervision of the Central Government the State Government has a sphere of its own powers and can take legally specified actions under the Central Act and rules
Thus the whole field of control and regulation under the provisions of the Central Act cannot be said to be reserved for the Central Government
698B c The stated objects and reasons of the State Act showed that the acquisition was to be made to protect the mineral potentialities of the land and to ensure their proper development and exploitation on scientific lines
If this was the actual purpose behind the Act it did not materially differ from that which could be said to lie behind the Central Act
692E d The provisions contained in section 161b show that Parliament itself contemplated state legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government
It only required that rights to mining granted in such land should be regulated by the provisions of Act 67 of 1957 as amended in 1972
This feature could only be explained on the assumption that Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State legislatures under entry 18 of List II read with entry 42 of List III
Again section 17 of the Central Act shows that there was no intention to interfere with vesting of lands in the States by the provisions of the Central Act
707B C e There is no force in the contention of the respondents that the vesting contemplated by section 161b as it now stands must be of estates of proprietors or lands of tenureholders under some legislation for agrarian reform
Agrarian 31A of the Constitution is not confined to legislation for agrarian reform
Agrarian reform is only one of the possible or alternative objects of such acquisition
It need not be the exclusive or only purpose of State legislation contemplated by section 161b of the Central Act
Power to legislate for the acquisition of the whole of an estate or tenure  would include the power to legislate for any part of it
707 D E Hingir Rampur Coal Co Ltd  Ors
vs The State of Orissa  Ors1961 2 SCR 537 State of West Bengal vs Union of India1964 1 SCR 371 State of Orissa vs M A Tulloch  Co   Baijnath Kedia vs The State of Bihar1970 2 SCR 100 held inapplicable
2 The lessee and licensee rights governed by the Central Act or rules are not covered by the State Act
It is clear from section 32 of the State Act that the provisions of this Act were to be read subject to the provisions made by or under the Central Act
The State Act did not and could not upso facto 690 terminate either lessee or licensee rights which were subsisting on the date when the State Act came into force
On the other hand
section 9 of the Central Act 56 of 1972 which amended section 16 of the principal Act made it imperative for such lessee rights as existed in estates which had vested in a State Government to be brought into conformity with the Central Act
Therefore if there were no lessee or licensee rights of mining in minor minerals on land which were actually regulated by the provisions of the Central Act they would continue
708H In the instant case however
it was not shown how the notification of auctions of mining rights affected any subsisting rights of any alleged lessee or licensee
It has not been shown that any lessee or licensee asked the State Government to carry out any statutory or contractual obligation before he invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or this Court
The essential averments to disclose subsisting rights or the locus standi of the petitioners were wanting in these petitions
709A 3 In the second batch of petitions the only dispute between the parties related to the vesting of ownership rights in minor minerals in those plots
The petitioners have come to this Court as lessees and not as owners
Rights of former owners have been validly terminated by the State Act
It is difficult to make out from these petitions how any lessee rights acquired by the petitioners themselves under any law subsisted or were affected by the notifications
710E F 4 The statement of objects and reasons is relevant when the object or purpose of an enactment is in dispute or uncertain
It can never override the effect which follows logically from the explicit and unmistakable language of its substantive provisions
Such effect is the best evidence of intention
A statement of objects and reasons is not a part of the statute and therefore it is not even relevant in a case in which the language of the operative parts of the Act leaves no room whatsoever to doubt what was meant by the legislators
706D E In the instant case it is not disputed that the object and effect of the State Act was to acquire proprietary rights to mineral deposits in land
Its provisions however do not mention leasehold or licensee rights
This is so because these rights were governed by the Central Act 67 of 1957
5 It is not correct to say that any new question was allowed to be raised simply because the parties were permitted to place their points of view on the same question after taking into account the changes brought about in Act 67 of 1957 by Act 56 of 1972 and how earlier decisions of this Court which were given before the amendments came into force could be at all helpful in deciding the questions
The Court is bound to take judicial notice of the law as it exists and not the law as it once was
706G