Royalty on minor minerals can apply to brick earth extraction from private land, without first deciding ownership.

Brick earth, once declared a minor mineral and brought within the Mineral Rules, was subject to royalty on excavation and disposal even when taken from privately leased land. The statutory scheme governed quarrying, returns, assessment and recovery of royalty, and no exemption applied merely because the land was private. Ownership of the land or brick earth did not have to be adjudicated before recovery, because the suits challenged royalty demands rather than title and no ownership issue had been framed or decided. The High Court's judgment was set aside, the trial court's dismissal of the suits was restored, and the State's authority to recover royalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether brick earth, once declared a minor mineral and governed by the Mineral Rules, could be subjected to royalty even if excavation was from privately leased land. (ii) Whether the ownership of the land or brick earth was required to be adjudicated before the State could recover royalty.

Issue (i): Whether brick earth, once declared a minor mineral and governed by the Mineral Rules, could be subjected to royalty even if excavation was from privately leased land.

Analysis: Brick earth was declared a minor mineral under the statutory notification, and the Mineral Rules provided a complete scheme for quarrying, filing returns, assessment of royalty, and recovery. The rules did not exempt excavation of brick earth for manufacture of bricks from royalty. The levy was attached to the regulated mining activity under the rules, and the State's power to assess royalty followed from that statutory framework.

Conclusion: Yes. Royalty was leviable on the excavation and disposal of brick earth under the Mineral Rules, notwithstanding that the land may have been private land.

Issue (ii): Whether the ownership of the land or brick earth was required to be adjudicated before the State could recover royalty.

Analysis: The suits were framed as challenges to the State's demand and recovery of royalty, not as proper title suits. The persons claiming to be the real owners were not parties, and no issue on ownership had been framed or decided by the courts below. In any event, once the activity fell within the royalty provisions of the Mineral Rules, the question of ownership of the land did not affect the State's power to levy royalty, except in the limited exempted category under the rules.

Conclusion: No. Ownership did not have to be adjudicated for the State to levy royalty, and the issue of title was irrelevant to the legality of the royalty demand on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the dismissal of the suits by the Trial Court was restored, leaving the question of ownership open while upholding the State's authority to recover royalty on brick earth.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a mineral is declared minor and the governing rules provide for assessment and recovery of royalty on quarrying or mining, the State may levy royalty on the regulated extraction activity irrespective of land ownership, unless a statutory exemption applies.

---