Mineral ownership under Malabar tenures: landholders retained subsoil rights, and State ownership required express statutory vesting.

In Malabar, holders of jenmom lands and ryotwari pattas were recognised as having proprietary rights over the subsoil and minerals beneath their lands. The Court distinguished authorities relating to inam and estate lands and held them inapplicable to the ryotwari pattadar's claim. It treated Board Standing Order No. 10 as reflecting only a limited sovereign claim to a share in mineral produce, not State ownership of the minerals. It further stated that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 regulates mining operations but does not itself vest mineral ownership in the State, and that any such vesting must be expressly provided by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the holders of jenmom lands or ryotwari pattas in the Malabar area had proprietary rights over the subsoil and minerals beneath their lands, and whether the State could be treated as owner of those minerals.

Analysis: The legal position was examined against the backdrop of Malabar land tenures, the effect of the ryotwari system, the historical standing orders of the Madras Revenue Board, and constitutional provisions on succession to property. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with inam and estate lands, holding them inapplicable to the ryotwari pattadar's claim in Malabar. It noted that the Board's Standing Order No. 10 recognised only a limited State claim to a share in mineral produce in certain ryotwari and jenmom lands, which indicated an assertion of sovereign power to levy a charge rather than proprietary ownership of the minerals. The Court further held that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 regulates mining operations but does not itself vest mineral ownership in the State, and that later nationalisation statutes showed that specific vesting had to be expressly provided by law.

Conclusion: The holders of the lands were entitled to the subsoil minerals, and the State was not the owner of those minerals on the facts and legal regime considered.

---