1971 (3) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules against sub-soil rights claim for granite hillock; Appeal allowed, costs awarded.

The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to sub-soil rights under the pattas granted by Nawab Salar Jung III. The claim for compensation ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to sub-soil rights under pattas granted by Nawab Salar Jung III.2. Claim for compensation for the acquisition of land containing granite hillock.3. Determination of whether granite is considered a mineral under the relevant laws.4. Interpretation of historical grants and their implications on sub-soil rights.5. Applicability of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act and Farmans to the case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Sub-soil Rights:The main question was whether the respondent was entitled to sub-soil rights by virtue of the pattas granted by Nawab Salar Jung III. The court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Nizam had parted with the mineral rights to the jagirdar or that the jagirdar had conferred such rights to the respondent. The patta documents indicated that the land was intended for cultivation or grazing, with express reservations of fruit-bearing trees to the grantor, which negated the implication of sub-soil rights being granted.2. Claim for Compensation:The respondent claimed compensation for the acquisition of a large block of land containing a granite hillock required for the Tungabhadra Project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially disallowed the claim regarding the granite hillock, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 31,260-8-0. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 48,892 but ruled that the claimant had no right to the minerals and quarries. The High Court's decision to entertain the claim was overturned, and the appeal was allowed, negating the claim to compensation based on sub-soil rights.3. Determination of Granite as a Mineral:The court discussed whether granite is considered a mineral under the relevant laws. Referring to Halsbury's Laws of England and the case of Attorney General v. Welsh Granite Co., it was concluded that granite is indeed a mineral. Therefore, the sub-soil rights to granite would need to be explicitly granted, which was not the case here.4. Interpretation of Historical Grants:The court examined historical grants and their implications on sub-soil rights. Citing precedents from the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, it was established that sub-soil rights are not implied in grants of surface rights unless explicitly mentioned. The court referred to various cases, including Hari Narayan Singh v. Sriram Chakravarti and Durga Prasad Singh v. Braja Nath Bose, to support the principle that mineral rights remain with the grantor unless expressly conveyed.5. Applicability of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act and Farmans:The court found it unnecessary to consider the effect of the Farmans or Section 63 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act since the pattas did not imply a grant of sub-soil rights. The High Court's interpretation that the Farmans did not affect subsisting rights in minerals if they belonged to the jagirdar was set aside. The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish the grant of mineral rights, which was not met.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the claim to compensation based on sub-soil rights was negated. The decree of the High Court regarding the minerals in the land or quarry rights was set aside, and the judgment and order of the District Judge on that point were restored. The respondent was entitled to the costs of the appeal as per the order of the Court.