Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 1415 (MAD)

N. Murugesan v. The District Collector, Karur

1998-10-24

K.GOVINDARAJAN

body1998
Judgment 1. Thepetitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus, forebearing the respondent, the District Collector, Karur from transporting the sand stored at Manavasi Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the dealer in dealing with the sand. He used to purchase sand from the lessees by paying necessary charges and transport them to the places with valid transport permits. According to the petitioner, he purchased sand from the lessee with respect to the quarry in S.F.No.1 of Mayanur village, Kulithalai Taluk on payment of consideration. The petitioner stored 357 lorry loads of sand from the said Mayanur Village and, in view of the lorry strike he could not remove the sand from the said Mayanur Village. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the law and order situation at Coimbatore, there was no order for supply of sand. During the second week of March, 1998, though he got order for supply of sand he could not remove it in view of the fact that the Village Administrative Officer prevented him from taking sand to Coimbatore stating that the same was seized by the officials of Geology and Mining, as instructed by the respondent. He sent a representation on 13.3.1998 to the Joint Director, Geology and Mining, Karur to permit him to take sand from the said Manavasi Village. No reply was received. Again the petitioner sent a representation on 30.3.1998 and on 3.4.1998. But the officials prevented the petitioner from transporting the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the sand which the petitioner had already purchased from the lessees. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the order of Ismail, J., as he then was, in W.P.No.5301 of 1973 of 1973, dated 28.11.1973. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the sand which the petitioner had already purchased from the lessees. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the order of Ismail, J., as he then was, in W.P.No.5301 of 1973 of 1973, dated 28.11.1973. While dealing with the powers of the officials with respect to getting way permits for the purpose of transporting minerals, which the petitioner therein produced from the lessees, has held as follows: “Consequently, it is clear that neither Sec.24(1) of the Act nor the notification of the Government of India is referred to above, enables the respondents herein to insist upon the petitioner obtaining a way permit from the respondents for transporting any of the materials from the factory of the petitioner to the outside world. In view of this, the respondents were not justified in calling upon the petitioner to obtain a way permit for the purpose of transporting the materials in question from its factory to the outside world.” 4. The learned Senior Counsel has further relied on the decision in Kaveri Chetty, M.P.P. v. State of Tamil Nadu and another Kaveri Chetty, M.P.P. v. State of Tamil Nadu and another Kaveri Chetty, M.P.P. v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , 1993 Writ L.R. 63. The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the powers of the Government with respect to minerals, has held as follows: “The last ground of attack on Rule 19(B) is that the restrictions placed by the State Government through the Rule 19(B) are without authority of law and violative of Arts.14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution. We proceed on the basis that ryotwari patta holder is entitled only to the surface of the patta land and the underground minerals belong to the Government. We also proceed on the basis that granite is a minor mineral within the meaning of Sec.3(e) of the Act. As rightly contended by Mr.P.Chindambaram, once when the mining lease is granted and royalty and seigniorage fee have been collected from the mining lease-holder the mineral extracted from the land belongs to the mining lease holder. We also proceed on the basis that granite is a minor mineral within the meaning of Sec.3(e) of the Act. As rightly contended by Mr.P.Chindambaram, once when the mining lease is granted and royalty and seigniorage fee have been collected from the mining lease-holder the mineral extracted from the land belongs to the mining lease holder. By paying royalty and seigniorage fee to the Government, the mining lease holder becomes the owner of the mineral and he is free to sell them in the domestic market or export the same, subject only to the law made by a competent authority. Whatever may be the right of the Government initially over the underground minerals, once when the mining lease is granted, royalty and seigniorage fee are paid by the mining lease holder to the Government and granite is extracted by the mining lease holder, the ownership of the granite so extracted passes from the Government to the mining lease holder and he is entitled to sell the granite either in the internal market or export them to his own buyers and the property rights of the mining lease holder in the granite already quarried, after payment of royalty and seigniorage fee, cannot be interfered with except by law made by competent authority.” 5. The abovesaid decision went to the Apex Court for their scrutiny, and in the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.P.P.Kavery Chetty State of Tamil Nadu v. M.P.P.Kavery Chetty State of Tamil Nadu v. M.P.P.Kavery Chetty , A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 858 the Apex Court also, while confirming the said view, held as follows: “Rules 8-D and 19-B empowers the State Government or its Officers or a State Government company or corporation as the State Government may direct to control the sale by every permit-holder of quarrel granite or other rock suitable for ornamental or decorative purposes. They also empower the State Government or its Officers or a State Government Company or Corporation, as the case may be, to fix the minimum price for the sale thereof. The object, as is shown by the terms of Government Order No.214 dated 10th June, 1992, quoted above, is to conserve and protect granite resources. ……. ……. There is no power conferred upon the State Government under the said Act to exercise control over minor minerals after they have been excavated. The object, as is shown by the terms of Government Order No.214 dated 10th June, 1992, quoted above, is to conserve and protect granite resources. ……. ……. There is no power conferred upon the State Government under the said Act to exercise control over minor minerals after they have been excavated. The power of the State Government, as the subordinate rule making authority, is restricted in the manner set out in Sec.15. The power to control the sale and the sale price of a minor mineral is not covered by the terms of clause (o) of Sub-sec. (1A) of Sec.15. This clause can relate only to the regulation of the grant of quarry and mining leases and other mineral concessions and it does not confer the power to regulate the sale of already mined minerals.” 6. In view of the above settled principles of law, the respondent (District Collector) has no jurisdiction to deal with the sand stored by the petitioner if it is established, that the sand has been stored after purchase from the lessee. 7. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, even if the lessee who sold the said sand has not paid any legal charges contemplated under the Rules, it is for the authorities to collect the same from the lessee and on that ground, the respondent has no jurisdiction to prevent the person who purchased the said sand from the lessee and stored the same from dealing with it. 8. The respondent has filed a counter stating that in spite of enquiries, nobody had, claimed the ownership of the said sand and they have also published in the newspaper and so the respondent has ordered for sale of the said sand in public auction. But, unfortunately, the respondent has failed to take into consideration of the representations made by the petitioner on 13.3.1998, 30.3.1998 and 13.4.1998 claiming right over the said sand. The respondent did not take care to enquire the petitioner in this regard. He has simply ignored the said representations though they had been served on him. 9. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am not able to accept the case of the respondent that the sand stored in S.F.No.1, Mayanur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District can be said to be unclaimed property. He has simply ignored the said representations though they had been served on him. 9. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am not able to accept the case of the respondent that the sand stored in S.F.No.1, Mayanur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District can be said to be unclaimed property. The respondent without even appreciating the representations given by the petitioner has made the publication with respect to the auction. Hence I consider that the petitioner should be given an opportunity by the respondent to establish his ownership prima facie. Even if the petitioner establishes his prima facie title and right to the sand in question, the respondent cannot have any right under the provisions of the Act to deal with the same. 9. In view of the above discussion, the respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry within a month from the date of this order, giving opportunity to the petitioner to establish his ownership prima facie with respect to the sand in dispute. If the petitioner establishes his prima facie right over the sand in dispute, he is entitled to remove and transport the same to the place of his choice. With the above observations, this writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.Nos are closed.