RSA No.3806 of 1987 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. RSA No.3806 of 1987 Date of Decision: 23.07.2010 State of Punjab and another ....Appellants Versus Amrit Lal ....Respondent. RSA No.3808 of 1987 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants. Versus Shiv Kumar Goyal Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. ... Alok Singh, J. Present appeals have been filed against the order dated 3.5.1986 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 12.8.1987 passed by the Appellate Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff, challenging demand RSA No.3806 of 1987 2 notice issued by defendant No.2 to pay royalty, was accepted. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs – respondents herein have been running the business of Brick kiln in the name and style of Sarswati Brick Kiln, Bhaini Bagna. Brick Kiln has been installed in the land owned by the private land owner. Appellant – defendant No.2 assessed royalty for extracting the earth from the land to the extent of Rs.68538.76. No part of the land vests in the Punjab government. Appellants – defendants have no power to charge royalty for using the earth to manufacture bricks under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act). Plaintiffs cannot be asked to pay royalty as the plaintiffs - respondents have not been charging any amount from his customers in this respect. Plaintiffs - respondents are not licensee under the government. A number of writ petitions are pending before the Supreme Court relating to the matter under reference. Until and unless the Supreme Court decides the aforesaid matters, defendants - appellants are not entitled to levy royalty from the plaintiff. Therefore, demand notice issued by defendant - appellant No.2 is illegal, null and void. Plaint was contested by the defendants and the defendants filed joint written statement. Preliminary objections were taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. On merits, it was averred that any lease between the plaintiffs and the land owner is illegal and that the plaintiffs are bound to pay royalty under the provisions of the 1957 Act. The trial Court vide order dated 3.5.1986 accepted the suit and RSA No.3806 of 1987 3 held the demand notice issued by appellant – defendant No.2 as illegal, null and void. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 3.5.1986, the defendants filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The Appellate Court vide order dated 12.8.1987 after examining the material available on record, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the trial Court dated 3.5.1986. The appellants have challenged the order dated 3.5.1986 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 12.8.1987 passed by the Appellate Court by filing the present appeal. Both the Courts below have held that brick land belongs to the original owner from whom the respondents took the land on lease. The Appellate Court has also placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Shadi Lal and others (RSA No.214 of 1972, decided on 11.3.1983) and in the case of M/s. Nanak Chand Ghasi Ram Vs. State of Punjab (RSA No.581 of 1983) and in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Jagdish Chander, 1984 (1) All India Land Law Reporter 239 and has held that brick land does not belong to the government, rather it belongs to the owner of the land. Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly stated that in view of the judgements relied upon by the Appellant Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. In my considered view, if a law point has already been decided by the High Court or by the Apex Court and that law point is no more res- integra, the same cannot be said to be substantial question of law in the subsequent cases. Appeals are devoid of merits and hence are dismissed. RSA No.3806 of 1987 4 A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 23.07.2010 sk.