Ordinary earth excavation penalty turns on notified end use, not mere digging for foundations or permitted land-grant work.

Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code applies only where ordinary earth is extracted or removed without lawful authority and for a use covered by the statutory notification treating it as a minor mineral. Excavation for laying building foundations was held not to attract penalty merely because earth was dug up, since liability depends on the end use and not the act of excavation alone. Excavation by the Nuclear Power Corporation for widening a water channel in aid of the land grant was likewise treated as incidental to the permitted use and not a notified mineral use, so the penalty could not stand. The constitutional challenge was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excavation of ordinary earth for laying building foundations attracts penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 when the earth is not used for filling or levelling purposes contemplated by the notification under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (ii) Whether excavation of ordinary earth undertaken by the Nuclear Power Corporation for widening a water channel in furtherance of the land grant attracts penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Issue (i): Whether excavation of ordinary earth for laying building foundations attracts penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 when the earth is not used for filling or levelling purposes contemplated by the notification under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 48(7) is attracted only when there is extraction or removal of mineral without lawful authority or assignment by the State. Ordinary earth was brought within the definition of minor mineral by the notification under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, but only when used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways and buildings. The Court held that excavation for laying building foundations is not ordinarily an excavation for such notified use, and liability cannot be imposed merely because earth was dug up. The decisive question is the end use of the excavated earth.

Conclusion: The builders were not automatically liable under Section 48(7) merely because ordinary earth was excavated for foundations; the applicability of the provision depended on whether the excavated earth was used for a notified purpose.

Issue (ii): Whether excavation of ordinary earth undertaken by the Nuclear Power Corporation for widening a water channel in furtherance of the land grant attracts penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Analysis: The excavation was undertaken to further the object of the land grant and not for the purposes specified in the notification treating ordinary earth as a minor mineral. The extraction was incidental to the permitted use of the land and did not involve commercial exploitation or a notified mineral use. On that basis, the impugned penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The Nuclear Power Corporation was not liable under Section 48(7) for the excavation undertaken in the course of work connected with the land grant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals and writ petition succeeded on the principal question of liability under Section 48(7), and the constitutional challenge to the provision was left open for decision in an appropriate case.

Ratio Decidendi: Excavaton of ordinary earth attracts penalty as mining-related extraction only when the excavation is for a use covered by the statutory notification treating it as a minor mineral; excavation incidental to construction foundations or to the execution of a permitted land grant, without the notified end use, does not by itself attract liability.

---