Case: State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Duvvuru Balarami Reddy

have been a serious controversy in the High Court and it does not appear that the respondents contended that under the terms of the grant to the shrotriemdars the latter were entitled to sub-soil rights. We have already referred to that part of the judgment of the appeal Court which suggests that even the appeal Court was of the view that the sub-soil rights were in the Government in this case and the surface rights were in the shrotriemdars. The original grant is not available and all that we have is the inam fair register of 1861 and all that is stated in that register is that the grant is for the personal advantage of the holder. There is nothing therefore in the inam fair register to show that the grant included the grant of sub-soil rights.11. It is however urged on behalf of the respondents that the grant included Poramboke, and from the fact that Poramboke was also included it should be inferred that mere surface rights were not the subject matter of the grant. Reliance in this connection, has been placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Secretary of State v Krishna Rao, 72 Ind App 211 : (AIR 1945 PC 165). The dispute in that case related to levy of water cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act. (No. 7 of 1865). The Judicial Committee pointed out that the inam grant in that case included not only dry, wet and garden land but also Poramboke, i.e. unculturable land. This was held to indicate that full proprietary rights were granted and therefore the Government could not charge any water cess. It is urged for the respondents that this case shows that where Poramboke is also granted, the grantee gets all the rights including the sub-soil rights in full proprietorship. It should however be remembered that the dispute in that case was whether the inamdar was entitled to free irrigation from water sources lying in the shrotriem village by virtue of the grant of whether the grantor could levy a cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act. There was no dispute as to sub-soil rights in that case, the dispute being confined to surface rights relating to water. The Government contended in that case that the grant to the inamdar was only of the melvaram or the right of the revenue from the lands, while the respondents contention was that the grant carried not only the melvaram but also the proprietary interest in the land itself and therefore the Government had no right to levy the irrigation cess. It was in that connection that the Judicial Committee held that the grant of Poramboke i.e. uncluturable land, was one of the factors that indicated that it was not a mere grant of melvaram but full proprietary right. It is remarkable however that though the Judicial Committee came to the conclusion in that case that full proprietary right had been granted, it referred to the earlier decision in Srinivasa Chariars case during the course of the judgment. This later decision therefore in our opinion cannot be read in such a way as to lay down that wherever Poramboke is included in the inam grant, a presumption must be drawn that the inam grant included sub-soil rights also; all that may be possible to infer by the inclusion of Poramboke on the basis of this decision is that all the surface rights were granted and not merely the melvaram as was contended in that case. The fact therefore that in the inam fair register in this case the grant includes Poramboke would not by itself establish that sub-soil rights were also included in the grant. So far as sub-soil rights are concerned, they can only pass to the grantee if they are conferred as such by the grant or if it can be inferred from the grant that sub-soil rights were also included therein. We have already remarked that the original grant in this case is not available and we have only the inam fair register to go by. There can be no doubt therefore on the facts of this case that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the grant of sub-soil rights to shrotriemadars is not established. The appeal Court also does not appear to differ from this view of the learned Single Judge.12. Once the conclusion is reached that sub-soil rights were not granted to the shrotriemdars it seems to us that the inference is plain that it was not open to the shrotriemdaras to grant any lease of minerals lying under the soil to any one. Therefore the leases granted by the shrotriemdars to the respondents in this case would be of no legal effect in conveying any right to them in the minerals under the soil. In the circumstances the respondents cannot put forward the leases in their favour to claim a mining lease under the Rules. With respect, we have not been able to understand how the difficulty which may arise in practice, on account of the sub-soil rights being in the Government and the surface rights being in the shrotriemdars, in the working of the mines would make the shrotriemdars shares in the sub-soil rights and therefore entitled to grant a lease of the sub-soil right. Whatever may have been the practice in the past and however the Government may have been getting over the practical difficulty in the past would not confer any right to the minerals upon the shrotriemdars so as to enable him to grant a mining lease to any one. It follows therefore that the mining leases granted in this case were granted by persons who had no right to the minerals and therefore confer no rights on the respondents to claim as of right from the Governement that they should be granted a mining lease under the Rules.13. In view of the above decision Appeal No. 252 must be allowed and Appeal No. 253 must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]There was no dispute as to sub-soil rights in that case, the dispute being confined to surface rights relating to water. The Government contended in that case that the grant to the inamdar was only of the melvaram or the right of the revenue from the lands, while the respondents contention was that the grant carried not only the melvaram but also the proprietary interest in the land itself and therefore the Government had no right to levy the irrigation cess. It was in that connection that the Judicial Committee held that the grant of Poramboke i.e. uncluturable land, was one of the factors that indicated that it was not a mere grant of melvaram but full proprietary right. It is remarkable however that though the Judicial Committee came to the conclusion in that case that full proprietary right had been granted, it referred to the earlier decision in Srinivasa Chariars case during the course of the judgment. This later decision therefore in our opinion cannot be read in such a way as to lay down that wherever Poramboke is included in the inam grant, a presumption must be drawn that the inam grant included sub-soil rights also; all that may be possible to infer by the inclusion of Poramboke on the basis of this decision is that all the surface rights were granted and not merely the melvaram as was contended in that case. The fact therefore that in the inam fair register in this case the grant includes Poramboke would not by itself establish that sub-soil rights were also included in the grant. So far as sub-soil rights are concerned, they can only pass to the grantee if they are conferred as such by the grant or if it can be inferred from the grant that sub-soil rights were also included therein. We have already remarked that the original grant in this case is not available and we have only the inam fair register to go by. There can be no doubt therefore on the facts of this case that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the grant of sub-soil rights to shrotriemadars is not established. The appeal Court also does not appear to differ from this view of the learned Single Judge.12. Once the conclusion is reached that sub-soil rights were not granted to the shrotriemdars it seems to us that the inference is plain that it was not open to the shrotriemdaras to grant any lease of minerals lying under the soil to any one. Therefore the leases granted by the shrotriemdars to the respondents in this case would be of no legal effect in conveying any right to them in the minerals under the soil. In the circumstances the respondents cannot put forward the leases in their favour to claim a mining lease under the Rules. With respect, we have not been able to understand how the difficulty which may arise in practice, on account of the sub-soil rights being in the Government and the surface rights being in the shrotriemdars, in the working of the mines would make the shrotriemdars shares in the sub-soil rights and therefore entitled to grant a lease of the sub-soil right. Whatever may have been the practice in the past and however the Government may have been getting over the practical difficulty in the past would not confer any right to the minerals upon the shrotriemdars so as to enable him to grant a mining lease to any one. It follows therefore that the mining leases granted in this case were granted by persons who had no right to the minerals and therefore confer no rights on the respondents to claim as of right from the Governement that they should be granted a mining lease under the Rules.