IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 787 of 2003 Date of decision: 24.9.2008 Keshav Dass Sharma & another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents 1 & 2.: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondent No.3 Ms. Shilpa Sood, Central Govt. Counsel. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1983 and the consequent notifications and show cause notices annexure P-7, P-9 and P-10. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners of the land in village Mohtli in tehsil Nurpur. Mines and minerals in the nature of sand, stone, bajri, etc. were being put to acution by the State of Himachal Pradesh which granted leases for extraction of such mines and minerals. Some land owners challenged the right of the State to auction the mines and minerals. These petitions were allowed and it was held that the State had no right to auction the mines and minerals by this Court in cases Gram Panchayat and another vs. State and others, 1972 ILR (H.P.Series) 325 and M/s The Pathankot Bajri and Stone Company vs. The State of Punjab and another, 1977 ILR (H.P.Series) 446. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh enacted the Himachal Pradesh Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1987 taking over the rights in the mines and minerals. The assent of the President of India was also obtained. We need not deal with the contentions of the parties in detail since the matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Chanan Mal and others, (1977) 1 SCC 340. In that case also in an identical situation the Apex Court upheld the validity of the Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973. The wordings of both the Acts are virtually identical and the factual situation is also similar. In that case also before the enactment of the Haryana Act, the Court had decided the matter in favour of the land owners that the State had no right to take over the mines and minerals. Thereafter, the Haryana Act was enacted. The contention in that case as well as in the present case is that the right to control minerals vests only in the Centre and that the State has no authority to pass such a legislation. The identical provisions of the Haryana Act were held to be valid and not in any manner repugnant to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development ) Act 67 of 1957 enacted by the Parliament. In view of the clear cut decision of the apex Court, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioners that the State Government had no right to acquire the rights of the petitioners in the mines and minerals. Hence the petition is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 24, 2008 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™