Dismissed

State of Punjab etc. v. the Janta Bricks Workshop Industrial Society Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2012RSA/200/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two appeals, the High Court dismissed challenges to a decree restraining the appellants from claiming royalty on brick earth. The Court distinguished a favorable lower-level case due to subsequent statutory amendments and relied on a Supreme Court judgment holding the State cannot claim royalty from land owned by private owners.

What did the court decide?

Appels appealing tribunal order dismissed; no royalty claim allowed.

State of Punjab etc. Vs the Janta Bricks… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

R.S.A.No.200 of 1990 R.S.A.No.1065 of 1990

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision : 27.04.2012

¶5

R.S.A.No.200 of 1990

¶6

State of Punjab & another ..Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Janta Bricks Workshop Industrial Society Ltd. ..Respondents

¶9

R.S.A.No.1065 of 1990

¶10

State of Punjab & another ..Appellants Versus M/s Ambey Brick Manufacturing Co. ..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the appellants.

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals preferred by the defendants raising identical question of facts and law.

¶15

The plaintiffs herein filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from assessing, levying or recoverying royalty on the brick earth. It was contended by the plaintiffs that they are the lessee of the land from the private owners, therefore, the State has no right to claim royalty.

¶16

The defendants relied upon Section 42(2) of the Punjab Land

¶17

R.S.A.No.200 of 1990 R.S.A.No.1065 of 1990

¶18

¶19

Revenue Act, 1887 to contend that brick earth vests in the Government and they have right to claim royalty of the same.

¶20

The learned trial Court relied upon wajib-ul-arz (Ex.P5) to return a finding that brick earth was not expressely recorded in the wajibul-arz and thus, the demand of royalty is not sustainable. Consequently, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of this Court in M/s Chhajju Ram Sharma & sons and others Vs. The State of Punjab (CWP No.11011 of 2005 decided on 20.10.2011) to contend that the brick earth vests with the State. However, a perusal of the judgment shows that the question raised in the aforesaid case was consequent to enactment of Punjab Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1994 and in pursuance of which notifications dated 24.01.2000, 27.02.2007 and 28.03.2008 were published acquiring right to the brick earth in the schedules appended to each of such notification.

¶22

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab Vs. M/s Vishkarma & Co. JT 1993 (1) SC 448 has held that the State Government cannot claim royalty from the land owned by the private owners. Since the claim of the plaintiffs in the present cases is prior to enactment of said Act and the notifications issued thereunder, the same is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Vishkarma's case (supra).

¶23

Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law

¶24

R.S.A.No.200 of 1990 R.S.A.No.1065 of 1990

¶25

¶26

arises in the present appeals for consideration by this Court.

¶27

Dismissed.

¶28

27.04.2012 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE