Bhumidhari rights do not amount to proprietary ownership, so royalty on earth excavation remained payable.

Bhumidhari rights were treated as a high form of tenancy right, not proprietary ownership, so the holder could not claim the land as private property to avoid royalty on earth excavation under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963. Because the land vested in the State under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the claim that royalty was not payable failed. The royalty demand was upheld and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether royalty could be demanded for excavation of earth from land held in Bhumidhari rights, and whether such land conferred proprietary ownership so as to exclude royalty.

Analysis: Bhumidhari rights were held to be a high form of tenancy right, but not proprietary ownership. The land vested in the State under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and therefore the petitioner could not claim that the land was his proprietary land for the purpose of avoiding royalty under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963.

Conclusion: The demand of royalty was upheld and the writ petition failed.

---