Judgment : 1. Petitioners are Associations of Brick Manufactures. Both the Associations have prayed for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the respondents, namely the Union of India from treating the agricultural earth as mineral and render justice. 2. The case of the petitioner Associations is that the members of the Associations own patta lands and they are removing the agricultural earth for the purpose of mixing it with slurry collected in the village tanks etc. to make bricks or tiles, as the case may be. The earth is removed and transported to Brick Kiln sites for the purpose of manufacturing the bricks. For removal of agricultural earth, according to the petitioners, no lease or licence is required. All these years, no such licence or lease was insisted upon. They also admit that some of the members have obtained leases for removing Soudu, which is a loose type of earth, and there is no provision regarding the granting or regulating of leases to agricultural earth. Whileso, the subordinates of the State Government, are detaining the petitioners vehicles, transporting the earth, without any authority and imposing a penalty. Neither the agricultural earth nor the Soudu are minerals, and by mixing both in a required proportion, they make the brick earth and they cannot be treated as a mineral as defined under Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 3. Notice had been ordered in W.P. No. 2382 of 1999 and interim injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the members to remove and transport agricultural earth, has been obtained in that writ petition. W.P. No. 4738 of 99 is yet to be admitted, and the same had been adjourned from 23. 1999 onwards, with a request to be posted along with the other writ petition. After several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing today. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the second respondent and considered the matter carefully. 4. 1999 onwards, with a request to be posted along with the other writ petition. After several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing today. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the second respondent and considered the matter carefully. 4. At the outset, it has to be stated that the question raised in the writ petition is covered by the clear provisions and the definition contained under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court on this aspect, which can be immediately referred to. 5. By virtue of Entry 54, List 1 of the VII Schedule to the Constitution, the regulation of mines and mineral development has been taken over to the control of the Union, and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted. Section 3 of the Act defines minerals as follows: "3(a) "Minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils. 3(e) "Minor Minerals" means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral, which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral." From a plain reading of the Section, the word mineral is an inclusive definition, and the minor mineral means ordinary clay and ordinary sand. Brick earth is also notified as minor mineral in G.S.R. 436 dated 6. 1958. Thus, as per the plain reading of the Section, ordinary clay, ordinary sand and brick earth are minerals. If the petitioners use the earth for the purpose of making bricks, it will be a brick earth within the plain meaning of minor minerals. The case of the petitioners is that they raise the agricultural earth and mix it with loose soil or Soudu, which is also available from the earth, for the purpose of making a brick. By this process, they want to exclude the agricultural earth from the definition of minor minerals. Section 4 of the Act restricts mining in any area except under and in accordance with the term and conditions of a mining lease granted under the Act or the rules made thereunder. By this process, they want to exclude the agricultural earth from the definition of minor minerals. Section 4 of the Act restricts mining in any area except under and in accordance with the term and conditions of a mining lease granted under the Act or the rules made thereunder. Therefore, it follows that if agricultural earth is a mineral, then there is a restriction of mining operation without a mining lease. 6. The Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules framed as per the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act, under the definition clause Rule 2, states that the terms "quarry", "quarrying lease" and "quarrying operations" shall have the same meaning assigned to "Mine", "Mining lease" and "mining operations" in the Act. Rule 6 provides for quarrying for domestic or agricultural or other specific purposes from river beds and unreserved lands at the disposal of the Government. Public may be allowed to quarry free for the bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose without obtaining permit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 provides for a permission to individual persons engaged in the making of pots or bricks by the Panchayat Union Council. The proviso to the said rule states that if removal exceeds 800 cartloads of clay or sand or a mixture of both, seigniorage fee is leviable. Rule 8 provides for granting of lease for areas for quarrying minor minerals other than minerals like black, red etc. granites. Rule 12 prohibits the removal of sand etc. from the works and lands incharge of Public Works Department and tanks incharge of Revenue Department. However, public may be allowed to quarry, free of charge, for bona fide domestic or agricultural purposes, sand or silt from the beds of tanks without obtaining permit. The rule further provides conditions for the removal of the sand and silt. Rule 13 deals with the power of the Municipal Council and Panchayat in reference to the removal of sand etc. from the source of water supply vested with them. Rule 14 provides the removal of sand for the purpose of railway administration. Rule 15 deals with the prohibition of removal of sand from river beds. Thus, insofar as the poromboke Government lands and lands vested with the local bodies are concerned, there is a prohibition of removing agricultural earth, or silt, or any type of earth capable of making bricks or tiles, pots, etc. Rule 15 deals with the prohibition of removal of sand from river beds. Thus, insofar as the poromboke Government lands and lands vested with the local bodies are concerned, there is a prohibition of removing agricultural earth, or silt, or any type of earth capable of making bricks or tiles, pots, etc. The rules clearly contemplate that agricultural earth and sand and silt are being used for the purpose of making brick and other similar items for which a permission or a lease is required. Besides, the lessees are to pay the seigniorage fee to the authorities. 7. As far as ryotwari lands in which the minerals belong to the Government, Rule 17 states that a registered lease holder may quarry, free of charge, any mineral on a small scale for his own use for a specific bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose, provided he has no intention of continuing quarrying operation indefinitely and provided further that the land is not rendered unfit for cultivation in future. Rule 18 specifically states that the quarrying of any mineral on a large scale or for any bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose shall be subject to payment of seigniorage fee or debt rent. Rule 18 provides for the procedure for obtaining quarrying lease in ryotwari land. Rule 22 provides for the conditions of quarrying. 8. The rules contemplate that though some of the members of the petitioner Associations are owners of the land, the minerals belong to the Government, and any quarrying other than for domestic or agricultural purposes, shall have to be based on a lease and subject to payment of fees and subject to the conditions imposed under the rules. As could be seen earlier while referring to the Government lands, the rules have specifically mentioned sand, silt and earth which are capable of being used for the purpose of making brick or pots etc. Therefore, any earth that is used, assuming for the sake of argument, along with any earth or loose soil or clay soil brought from the tank or river beds etc., still for the purpose of raising the minerals from the agricultural land from the land holders, they have to obtain permission. The minerals which are taken out for commercial purposes, namely the agricultural earth is a mineral. The minerals which are taken out for commercial purposes, namely the agricultural earth is a mineral. The contention that the agricultural land is taken out of the rule is only for the purpose of mixing with some other earth, and hence, it is not a brick earth is without any substance. The very question was decided by the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Chadha v. Delhi Administration, 1978 (4) S.C.C. 11 . Their Lordships observed as follows: "The expression "minor mineral", as defined in Section 3(e), includes ordinary clay and ordinary sand; there is no reason why earth used for the purpose of making bricks should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word "any other mineral which may be declared as minor mineral by the Government." (Italics supplied). Their Lordships, while approving the view taken in Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1965 Patna 491, Amarsingh Motilal v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1977 P & H 356, Sharma & Co v. State, of U.P. A.I.R. 1975. All. 396, disapproved the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Jagdamba Prasad, A.I.R. 1969 Cal. 281 that "because nobody speaks of ordinary earth as a mineral, it is not a minor mineral as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act." Their Lordships, ultimately held that the word mineral has no definite meaning, but has a variety of meanings depending on the context of its use. In the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, minerals is of sufficient amplitude to include brick earth. In B. Dass v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1393, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is wrong to assume that mines and minerals must always be subsoil and that there can be no mineral on the surface of the earth. The definition of mineral has to be given the widest amplitude as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. B.D. Dey and Co, . A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1669. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, was concerned with the contention that the deposits of sand on the surface of the earth are not mining operations and therefore, no licence is required. The Supreme Court held that the contention must be repelled. The definition of "mining operations" and "mine" are very wide. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1669. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, was concerned with the contention that the deposits of sand on the surface of the earth are not mining operations and therefore, no licence is required. The Supreme Court held that the contention must be repelled. The definition of "mining operations" and "mine" are very wide. The expression "winning of mineral" in the definition of "mining operation" is spacious enough to comprehend every activity by which the mineral is extracted or obtained from the earth, irrespective of whether such activity is carried out on the surface or in the bowels of the earth. 9. In Stonecraft Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999 (3) S.C.C. 343 , the Supreme Court, repelling the argument that granite is a mineral in the general sense, but not a mineral for the purpose of Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act, held that all minerals extracted from earth, granite included, are covered. In Chandeswar Prasad Singh v. Sub Divisional L.R. Officer, A.I.R. 1986 Cal. 1, it was held that earth, clay and brick earth all fall in the category of minerals; they come within the ambit of the Act. The case before the Calcutta High Court was also similar. The authorities in that case contended that extraction, use and consumption of earth were illegal. The case of the petitioners was also identical that they are the owners of the soil and it is their property. The Calcutta High Court, in an elaborate consideration of all the uses, held that petitioners have no right or property in earth, clay or other minor minerals. In Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1965 Pat. 489, the brick manufacturers who were engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks by using sand, earth, clay etc. without permit. As against notices, they moved the High Court. The Division Bench concluded holding that brick earth is a minor mineral. 10. A Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 8540 of 1989 etc., (judgment given by Venkataswami, J., as he then was, was dealing with the challenge to the rule of reservation made under the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules. Petitioners in those writ petitions were owners of patta lands, who contended that no such reservation can be made from the patta lands. Petitioners in those writ petitions were owners of patta lands, who contended that no such reservation can be made from the patta lands. One of the arguments putforth by the petitioners therein was that whatever may be the right of the Government to stipulate conditions regarding Government lands, such stipulations cannot be imposed on patta lands. In other words, according to the petitioners therein, they are full owners of not only the surface soil, but also the subsoil, including the minerals lying underneath the surface. Therefore, they have got every right to enjoy the property in whatever manner they like, without any restrictions. It was contended by the learned Advocate General that the State is the owner of the minerals lying underneath the surface, and they are the owners, and the pattadars are not the owners of the subsoil and the minerals lying under the surface. The Division Bench, while accepting the contention of the Government, held that in the whole of Tamil Nadu, the right of minerals only belongs to the State of Tamil Nadu. The Division Bench followed, with approval, the judgment in T. Swaminathan v. State, AIR 1971 Mad. 483 that there was nothing in the ryotwari system to recognise the pattadars as being entitled to the minerals under the surface soil. The whole of mineral rights under the surface and not merely a part in holding under ryotwari tenure belongs to the State. Therefore, once this question is clear that the minerals including the subsoil belongs to the State and simply because some of the members of the petitioner Associations are the owners of the land, they cannot claim exclusive right over the surface soil and say that it is not a minor mineral. The soil as such is the property of the State and they have got a right to impose restrictions for the use of soil for commercial purposes and since it is also a mineral, the Act provides that no removal of any mineral is permissible without a permit or a lease. The pattadars or lessees of the land are not owners of the minerals and the agricultural earth, silt, soudu, soil or clay are part of earth. The State is the owner of the minerals including the earth. Petitioners tear, cut and break the surface upto 5 to 10 feet or move the earth and remove it for commercial purpose. The pattadars or lessees of the land are not owners of the minerals and the agricultural earth, silt, soudu, soil or clay are part of earth. The State is the owner of the minerals including the earth. Petitioners tear, cut and break the surface upto 5 to 10 feet or move the earth and remove it for commercial purpose. The definition clause of minerals being inclusive clause and definition of mineral being to be understood in the context, the earth cannot be excluded from the definition of mineral. The Brick earth is declared to be minor mineral and upheld so by the Supreme court in M/s. Banarsi Dasss case, 1978 (4) S.C.C. 11 . The contention that the earth is mixed up with soudu and clay and therefore, it is not mineral, has no substance and no records to make such a distinction are furnished. 11. For all these reasons, I hold that the agricultural earth is a mineral. Petitioners are removing earth for manufacturing brick. They can do so only with permission or lease from the State Government and they are liable to pay the necessary royalty, fees or other dues. The respondents are entitled to insist for a permit for its quarry and removal. Therefore, I do not find any ground whatsoever to hold that the agricultural earth is not a mineral. The contention made out in the writ petition does not stand for a moments scrutiny on the plain understanding of the definition under the Act and the rules and also the decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts interpreting the rules in reference to earth. The writ petitions therefore fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the related W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.