RSA No.821 of 1988 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.821 of 1988 Date of decision: November 22, 2010. State of Punjab ...Appellant v. M/s Balwant Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Palvinder Singh, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Shri P.C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint against the State of Punjab and Mining Officer, Industries Department, Ludhiana from recovering any amount by way of royalty on the brick earth extracted by the plaintiff from his land and lands taken on lease from private persons for preparation of bricks at his brick kiln situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Mining Officer – appellant/defendant No.2. It was pleaded in the suit that the plaintiff-respondent was engaged in the manufacture of bricks and is having his own brick kiln on his own land and the land taken on lease from the private land owners. It was further stated that the land owners were paid compensation for use of the lands. The earth was taken out from the land and was used for moulding bricks. The State Government had demanded royalty holding extraction of earth as illegal, the same being minor mineral. The trial Court placed reliance upon State of Punjab v. Om RSA No.821 of 1988 -: 2 :- Parkash, AIR 1985 P&H 67 to uphold the submission of the plaintiff- respondent. The trial Court had decreed the suit. Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed. The controversy raised in this appeal stands settled long ago by the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. M/s Vishkarma and Co. etc., JT 1993(1) SC 448, wherein Sections 31, 41 and 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 were considered and it was held as under:- “7. Brick-earth with which we are concerned in the present appeals, is a minor mineral was not disputed, although it is not any of the mines or minerals covered by section 41 of the Revenue Act as would make it become the property of the State. if the owner of such brick-earth is the State of Punjab, liability to pay royalty for removal of such brick-earth and to obtain permit or licence for such removal necessarily arises because of the operation of the Act and the Rules. But the courts below have concurrently found that the present appeals have arisen was in lands which formed the estates of the private owners and as such the same belonged to such land-owners. It is so found on their reading of the entries in Wajib-ul-arz pending to,the concerned estates. Wajib-ul-arz is a document included in the record-of-rights cannot be disputed since it contains the statements on matters envisaged under clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 31 of the Act. According to the courts below Wajib-ul-arz document being record-of-rights of estates completed after 18th day of November, 1871, and there being nothing expressly stated in them that the forest or quarry or land or interest in the estates belong to the Government, the lands in such estates including brick-earth in them shall be presumed to belong to the concerned land-owners as is declared in sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Revenue Act. “ After considering the entire gamut, their Lordships concluded as under:- “9. In our view, when all the courts below have concurrently RSA No.821 of 1988 -: 3 :- recorded findings to the effect that the ownership of the brick- earth belong to land-owners and not to the State on a correct appreciation of all evidence adduced in the case and on a proper application of the law governing the same, there could be no justification to interfere with such findings in these appeals. We are also not shown any valid reason as to why we should set aside the lower courts judgments and decrees and send the matters to the Courts of first instance with a direction to permit the State to adduce rebuttal evidence as regards entries in record-of-rights. “ In view of the law laid down in the above stated judgment of M/s Vishkarma and Co.'s (supra), no interference is warranted to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 22, 2010. Judge kadyan