Compensatory recovery under mining law applies where minerals were raised unlawfully and interim-order benefits cannot be retained.

Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 permits recovery of minerals or, if already disposed of, their price from a person who raised minerals without lawful authority, together with rent, royalty or tax. The provision is compensatory in character and not penal, and the marginal note "Penalties" does not control its plain wording. Where granite blocks were exported under interim protection and the interim orders later ceased to operate, the benefit could not be retained. The principle of restitution applies, so a party cannot keep an advantage obtained only because of a now-vacated interim order. The State's recovery of the price was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State could recover the price of granite blocks raised and exported by the appellants under interim protection, and whether such recovery under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was penal in nature.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 deals with several distinct situations. Sub-section (5) authorises recovery of the mineral or, where it has already been disposed of, the price thereof from a person who has raised minerals without lawful authority, together with rent, royalty or tax, and this recovery operates as compensation for the State's loss rather than as punishment. The marginal note "Penalties" cannot control the plain meaning of the provision. The benefit obtained under interim orders, once those orders stood vacated on dismissal of the earlier appeals, could not be retained by the appellants; the principle of restitution applies, and a party cannot be placed in a more advantageous position because of an interim order that later ceases to operate.

Conclusion: The demand for the price of the granite blocks was held to be compensatory and not penal, and the appellants were liable to pay it.

Final Conclusion: The State's recovery of the price of the minerals was upheld, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is compensatory in character, and a party who derived benefit under interim orders cannot retain that advantage after those orders are vacated.

---