https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296637 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. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:52:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296637 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296637