Case: State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Duvvuru Balarami Reddy

The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The respondents had files a writ petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining operations in survey No. 49/1 in the village of Ananthamadugu in Rapur Taluk of Nellore district subject to the respondents executing an agreement in the manner provided under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and conforming to the conditions mentioned therein. The case of the respondents was that they had obtained leases for mica mining purposes from various co-owners in the shrotriem village of Ananthamadugu on March 24,1953. Thereafter on May 27, 1953, this village was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, No. XXVI of 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the interest of the shrotriem owners was taken over by the appellant. The leases granted to the respondents were for a period of one year and one of the terms provided that the lessors were bound to extend and renew the period of lease for such period as may be desired by the lessees subject to the Rules. After the estate was taken over, the question arose whether the leases were enforceable against the Government under S. 20 (1) of the Act. In November 1953, the Manager of Estates, appointed on behalf of the Government, held that the leases were enforceable against the Government. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Nellore. Thereupon there was a revision petition by one of the co. owners of the shrotriem who was not a party to the leases before the Board of Revenue. The respondents also applied to the Government for permission to work the mines. The Government however did not grant such permission. The respondents contended that the Government had no right to withhold permission to work the mines. Therefore, the writ petition was filed asking for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining in accordance with the leases.2. The petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant and the main contention on its behalf was that the village in question being a shrotriem inam village there was no presumption that the inam grant included the grant of sub-soil rights also to the shrotriemdars. Therefore, the respondents could not claim any rights higher than those of their lessors. In effect, the appellant had contended that the lessors had no rights to the minerals and therefore the leases even if not void within. The meaning of S. 20 of the Act would not confer any rights on the respondents to claim as a matter of right the grant of permission to work the mines from the appellant and that it was entirely within the discretion of the State whether to grant a mining lease or not in accordance with the Rules. It was also stated that the revision filed before the Board of Revenue had been stayed as the points raised before the Board were covered by the questions involved in the writ petition.3. On these pleading the main question that arose for decision was whether the shrotriemdars had any rights in the minerals at all and were entitled to grant leases thereof. If the shrotriemdars had no right in the minerals the grant of leases by them would be of no value and would not entitle the respondents to claim a mining lease under the Rules from the appellant as a matter of right.4. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petition came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that the inam grant in the present case covered the right to minerals. In consequence it was held that the respondents did not get any rights under the said leases to the minerals. The learned Judge then considered the other points raised in the petition with which we are however not concerned and eventually dismissed it.5. The respondents went in appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, and the appeal Court seems to have held on a review of the various standing orders of the Board of Revenue of the composite State of Madras that the State was only entitled to impose a royalty on minerals taken out by the shrotriem inamdar. It was pointed out that this seemed to be in accordance with commonsense as the grantee is entitled to the surface rights and the grantor to the sub-soil rights and as the latter rights can only be exercised by entering upon the surface, it is only natural and just that they should share, what is produced by working the mine, since one cannot enter upon the land, as he has no right to do so and the other cannot work the mine, as he has no right to the land." This would seem to suggest that the appeal Court held that the sub-soil rights belonged to the State and not to the inamdars; but because of the difficulty that arose on account of the surface rights being in the inamdar and sub-soil rights being in the State, it apparently held that the inamdar and the Government should share what is produced by working the mine. Finally, however, the appeal Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period of one year for which the leases had been granted had expired before the decision of the appeal Court. It relied in this connection on the decision of this Court in K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, 1955-1 SCR 305   : (AIR 1954 SC 592  ) but as the respondents had failed on account of the expiry of time they were allowed their costs.6. This was followed by an application by the State for certificate which was granted, and that is how the States appeal has come up before us. As for the appeal by special leave by the respondents, they contend that the decision being in their favour on the merits, the High Court should have ordered the State to grant them a lease even though the period fixed in the original leases and the periods of renewal permissible under the Rules had expired.

Reasoning:
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.