ORDER Raghvendra Prasad, Member This is a second appeal against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 26th November 1963 in Appeal No. 174/61. The admitted facts of the case are that the Appellant who is a resident of Damoh town extracted clay and manufactured bricks on a commercial scale in 1968-59 and in 1959-60 from khasra numbers 312/1 and 312/2 in Movza Singhpur. These khasra numbers belonged to one Baba Gangadas who had abandoned the village several years ago and was not heard of ever since. Sand and clay within a radius of 10 miles of Damoh town was declared by the State Government to have a commercial value and Mouza Singhpur is covered by the notification. The clay extracted by the Appellant was, therefore, a mineral from 7-4-59, the date of the State Government's notification in this regard. Since the extraction was made without lawful authority the Collector, Damoh by his order dated 30th June 1961 imposed a penalty of Rs. 800 u/s 247(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) and also ordered the seizure and confiscation of 150000 bricks of the Appellant which were found on the spot. The Appellant preferred an appeal against this order to the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division who confirming the order of the Collector, Damoh rejected the appeal. Shri A.L. Halwe appeared for the Appellant and Shri K.K. Dubey appeared for the State. Their arguments were heard. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant attacked the order of the learned Additional Commissioner on the following grounds: (i) Since the land did not belong to the Government but was of a private person the extraction of mineral from that land did not fall within the mischief of Section 247(7) of the Code. (ii) The learned Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 800 without calculating the market value of the mineral extracted and removed by the Appellant. (iii) The learned Collector was not competent to seize and confiscate the bricks made out of the clay extracted by the Appellant as Section 247(8) only authorizes the Collector to seize and confiscate any mineral extracted and not things to which a mineral is converted after extraction. (iii) The learned Collector was not competent to seize and confiscate the bricks made out of the clay extracted by the Appellant as Section 247(8) only authorizes the Collector to seize and confiscate any mineral extracted and not things to which a mineral is converted after extraction. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that as the land belonged to one Baba Gangadas the extraction of mineral from that land did not fall within the mischief of Section 247(7) of the Code is absolutely misconceived. Section 247(1) of the Code clearly lays down that unless it is otherwise expressly provided by the terms of grant made by a Government the right to all minerals, mines and quarries shall vest in the State Government. It is not disputed that clay extracted from the land was not a mineral. Baba Gangadas or for that matter any other person may only be entitled to the surface right on the land if the land is leased to them. The minerals on the land belonged to the State Government and they cannot be extracted without lawful authority. In this case they were extracted without lawful authority and therefore, the Collector was quite competent to take action u/s 247(7) of the Code. From the perusal of the record I do not find any effort made by the Collector, Damoh to calculate the market value of the minerals extracted or removed by the Appellant. Shri K.K. Dubey Learned Counsel for the State admitted that the imposition of penalty on the Appellant is arbitrary. The Collector has not calculated the market value of the minerals extracted by the Appellant. In the case of Prabhu Dayal v. State 1961 R.N. 282, it has been held that a show cause notice intimating the alleged market value of the minerals should also be given and the value should be established by legal evidence. In the instant case the penalty has been fixed only arbitrarily and, therefore, it cannot be said to have been fixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 247(7) of the Code. The word 'calculated' occurring in Section 247(7) is of significance. The Collector has to apply his mind and has to see that the penalty in no case exceeds double the market value of the minerals extracted or removed. Such a calculation was certainly not made in the instant case. The word 'calculated' occurring in Section 247(7) is of significance. The Collector has to apply his mind and has to see that the penalty in no case exceeds double the market value of the minerals extracted or removed. Such a calculation was certainly not made in the instant case. The order of the Collector there, fore, suffers from this defect and is set aside. The case is remanded to him for calculating the market value of the mineral extracted by the Appellant and then passing orders u/s 247(7) of the Code according to law. I find much force in the third contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The learned Collector has ordered the seizure and confiscation of the bricks manufactured by the Appellant out of the clay extracted by him. Section 247(8) of the Code only authorizes the Collector to seize and confiscate the minerals extracted. It was clay which was extracted by the Appellant. The bricks made out of clay are not the same thing. Bricks are made after baking clay in blocks. In the course of baking the clay undoubtedly undergoes certain chemical changes and it ceases to be clay. The Collector, therefore, was not competent to seize the bricks prepared out of clay when the clay had lost its original and natural form. The learned Collector had, therefore, erred in seizing and confiscating the bricks prepared by the Appellant and appropriating the sale proceeds to the Government. The order of the Collector therefore, deserves to be set aside. If the bricks have not been sold they may be released and handed over to the Appellant. In case they have been sold out the Appellant is entitled to get back the sale proceeds. The learned Additional Commissioner, though in appeal memo the Appellant had clearly raised a point against seizure and confiscation of bricks, made no mention of it. In fact he did not discuss the action of the learned Collector regarding seizure and confiscation of bricks. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed and the case is remand-ed to the Collector Damoh for disposal in accordance with the directions in paras 4 and 5 above. Final Result : Allowed