JUDGMENT : These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed by a common appellant-M/s. Bagalkot Cement & Industries Limited, aggrieved of the common judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed in LAC No.173 of 2003 and connected matters by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’ for short) under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ’the L.A. Act’) rejecting the claim of the appellant for award of compensation in respect of the sub-soil/minerals underneath the soil of the acquired properties. Since the parties to the proceedings are common and the issue raised is also common, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. At the threshold, we should make it clear that although prayers are made in all these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation even in respect of the acquired lands (top-soil), nevertheless, no arguments have been canvassed on behalf of the appellant in that regard. Therefore, these appeals are confined to the issue as to whether the appellant is entitled for award of compensation in respect of the minerals lying underneath the sub-soil of the acquired lands. 3. Earlier too, the appellant was before this Court by filing MFA Nos.20112/2011 (LAC) c/w 20113-20120/2011 (LAC) aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.173 of 2003 and connected matters, wherein the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.630/- per sq.mtr. in certain cases and in certain other cases at Rs.800/- per sq.mtr. and Rs.880/- per sq.mtr. along with 12% additional market value on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of possession. 30% solatium was also granted on the enhanced market value. Further, in terms of Section 28 of the L.A.Act, the interest on the compensation was directed to be paid at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount for the 1st year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till deposit of the enhanced compensation amount. This Court having found that since sufficient evidence is not available on record in respect of the extent of limestone deposit beneath the sub-soil, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Reference Court. This Court having found that since sufficient evidence is not available on record in respect of the extent of limestone deposit beneath the sub-soil, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Reference Court. It was also held that the Reference Court was required to take into consideration various judgments considered by this Court, including the case of Thressiamma Jacob and Others Vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 725 and consider whether the appellants were entitled for award of compensation in respect of the minerals lying beneath the sub-soil. On remand, fresh evidence were lead on behalf of the appellant-company examining 7 witnesses and several documents were also got marked. Having regard to the judgments cited by the learned Counsels, including the case of Thressiamma Jacob (supra), the Reference Court was of the opinion that the appellant-company was not holding a valid mining licence and the mining activities were carried on without a valid licence. Accordingly, the claims of the appellant for compensation in respect of the limestone deposits were rejected. 4. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that one important provision of law which would clearly establish the sovereign rights of the minerals lying beneath the sub-soil in favour of the State is Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok S. Haranahalli, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is a separate enactment which deals with the grant of compensation in respect of the mines and minerals in The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in terms of the said statute and its provisions, more particularly, Section 3, whenever a notification is published under Section 6(1) of the L.A.Act, a declaration is also required to be made by the appropriate Government making a statement as to whether the mines of coal, iron-stone, slate or other minerals lying in the soil are not needed. Section 4 requires a notice to be given to any person who is entitled to extract the mines and minerals. Opportunity is required to be given to such persons who are otherwise entitled to extract the mines and minerals. Section 4 requires a notice to be given to any person who is entitled to extract the mines and minerals. Opportunity is required to be given to such persons who are otherwise entitled to extract the mines and minerals. Section 5 provides that if the works undertaken consequent to the acquisition proceedings would cause harm to the interest of such persons having rights over the mines and minerals, then the appropriate Government is required to give a declaration of its willingness to pay compensation either in respect of mines or minerals remained unextracted or to pay compensation to all such persons in consideration of their intrinsic rights in respect of the mines and minerals. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the Reference Court having accepted the contention that the appellant is the owner of the lands and for that matter having awarded compensation in respect of the acquired lands, cannot deprive the appellant of its rights to seek compensation for the minerals lying beneath the soil, more so, because the appellant-Company which was carrying on the business of production of cement was extracting the limestone required for the said purpose from the lands after having obtained the required licence. 5. However, when it was pointed out that both these provisions were not brought to the notice of the Reference Court and in the normal course, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Reference Court, the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel submitted that since it is a question of law, the same can be decided by this Court. It was agreed that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant-Company is entitled for award of compensation in respect of the limestone deposits lying in the lands in question, then the matter may be remitted to the Reference Court for determination of the compensation to be awarded. 6. This Court, therefore, proceeds to consider the question of law as to whether the appellant herein is entitled for award of compensation in respect of the limestone deposits in the acquired land. 7. Insofar as Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is concerned, the provision saved all rights of mines, minerals and mineral products in terms of any express provisions of law which were in force before the commencement of the Act, in favour of the owners of the land. 7. Insofar as Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is concerned, the provision saved all rights of mines, minerals and mineral products in terms of any express provisions of law which were in force before the commencement of the Act, in favour of the owners of the land. However, the provision was sought to be amended by Act No.20 of 1993, substituting the words ‘save as otherwise expressly provided under’ by ‘notwithstanding anything contained in’, thereby taking away the legitimate rights of the owners of the land in respect of the minerals lying beneath the soil. The amended provision was challenged by some of the owners of the land before this Court. Two conflicting decisions were rendered and consequently, the matter was considered by a Full Bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Dundamada Shetty, reported in ILR 1993 KAR 2605. The Full Bench held that the State Legislature wanted to introduce the Bill by which ownership rights of minor minerals which were vested in the pattadars were sought to be divested and vested in the State. However, it was held that if the State Legislature wanted to divest such rights, it could not do so without giving any compensation. The amending provision was therefore, held to be in contravention of Article 254 (1) which provides that if any provision of law made by the State Legislature is repugnant to any provision of law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Consequently, the amended provision was struck down. As a consequence, the provision once again reads as follows : “70. Consequently, the amended provision was struck down. As a consequence, the provision once again reads as follows : “70. Right to mines and mineral products to vest in Government.- Save as otherwise expressly provided under any law in force before the commencement of this Act or under the terms of any grant made or of any other instrument of transfer executed, by or on behalf of Government for the time being, the right to mines, minerals and mineral products, shall vest absolutely in the State Government and the State Government shall, subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act No.67 of 1957), have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment or disposal of such rights.” 8. The Full Bench also decided the question as to whether the owners of the land were entitled to mine and extract the minerals lying beneath the soil, without obtaining the requisite licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1969, and such other laws. It was held in point No.6 that insofar as the holders of patta lands in Ex-Madras State areas which later formed part of Karnataka State, they have partial ownership rights in the minerals found in the sub-soil of their lands occupied by them. The State has also a share in the minerals and hence, the holders of such patta lands will have to follow the provisions of Chapter-V of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1969, even if they themselves want to exploit the mineral found in the sub-soil of their lands. They were also required to follow the provisions of Rule 62A of the said Rules, at the stage at which they seek to transport the minerals quarried by them from their own lands. 9. They were also required to follow the provisions of Rule 62A of the said Rules, at the stage at which they seek to transport the minerals quarried by them from their own lands. 9. It was also declared that the holders of patta lands situated in Ex-Mysore State territory now comprised in Karnataka State and who are not holders of lands granted under Karnataka Government Grant Rules are full owners of sub-soil minor minerals situated in their patta lands and they are entitled to carry on quarrying operations by themselves qua the minor minerals without any restrictions from the State authority under the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, subject to the rider that they have to follow Rule 62A of the Rules at the stage of transporting the quarried minerals insofar as the said Rule would apply to such material sought to be transported. However, the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok S. Haranahalli, agree in cohesion that no decision is forthcoming from the Full Bench insofar as the land holdings in Ex-Bombay territory which are now within the State of Karnataka. We are concerned with the lands which were earlier in the Bombay province and now within the State of Karnataka. 10. But, what is to be noticed is that the Hon’ble Full Bench has in detail considered various provisions in various statutes and rules while considering the extent of rights of the pattadars in carrying out mining operations to extract minor minerals. In that regard, the Hon’ble Full Bench has held insofar as Ex-Mysore State areas forming part of Karnataka State are concerned that the owners of patta lands had full ownership rights in the minerals and they need not follow any regulatory procedure of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1969, save and except Rule 62A of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, while transporting such quarried minerals insofar as Rule 62A being applicable to such material. Having this in mind, when we consider the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, in Chapter-V, we find that in this Chapter pertaining to quarrying of minor minerals in private or patta lands are concerned, Rule 32 mandates that no person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State shall undertake quarrying operation of minor minerals except with a quarrying licence granted under that Chapter. In consonance with such requirement, it appears that the appellant herein obtained mining licence commencing from the year 1970. Even as per the written submission of the learned Advocate General, the appellant applied for renewal on 16.01.1989. The second renewal was sought on 29.10.1994, much prior to the issuance of the first 4(1) notification, which was issued in the year 1999. 11. It is noticeable that if such pattadar applies for licence/permission under Rule 32, the competent authority is required to confirm the title, status of land with the Deputy Commissioner in case of specified minor mineral and with the Tahsildar in case of non-specified minor mineral. Further, in terms of sub-rule (10) of Rule 32 of Rules, 1994, the pattadar, the holder of licence, is required to pay in addition to the royalty, an amount which is equal to the ‘Average Additional Periodic Payment’ if the mineral right of minor mineral do not vest with the pattadar. This provision will have a direct bearing on the issue which we are concerned with. It becomes clear that if in the opinion of the competent authority, while issuing the licence/permission in favour of a pattadar, the mineral rights of minor mineral has not vested in the pattadar, having regard to the applicable provisions of law, depending on whether the land was earlier in the Ex-Mysore province, Ex-Madras province, Ex-Bombay province or Ex-Hyderabad province, the competent authority would have levied and collected the Average Additional Periodic Payment, in addition to the royalty. The easiest way therefore, to find out as to whether the mineral rights in the lands in question vested with the appellant herein or not, we may look into the mining licence/permission and the relevant records, in terms of sub-rule (10) of Rule 32 of Rules, 1994. 12. In the matter of determining the compensation payable in respect of the mineral rights present beneath the sub-soil of an acquired land, it would be relevant to notice paragraphs-74 to 77 of the decision in Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta and Others, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 1. Paragraphs-74 to 77 read as follows : “74. We are not suggesting, as at present advised, that mineral rights or rights over minerals can in no situation remain in the hands of the private individuals. Pramod Gupta and Others, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 1. Paragraphs-74 to 77 read as follows : “74. We are not suggesting, as at present advised, that mineral rights or rights over minerals can in no situation remain in the hands of the private individuals. There may be cases where having regard to the statutory provisions, the mineral rights may continue to remain in the hands of the private owners. But while examining the question of computing the quantum of compensation, the Courts are required to bear in mind the extent of such rights and in particular the statutory provisions which prohibit carrying out mining operations without obtaining appropriate mining lease, prospective licence or permits. The Courts must also bear in mind that even in a case where owners are entitled to the minerals having regard to the provisions contained in the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 1934, the amount of compensation would be much less and with the acquisition of land the right to use the minerals would come to an end. Compensation for such minerals may not be computed on the basis of the profits earned by a mining lessee having a valid mining lease therefor. Furthermore, a person having a right to use mines and minerals for his personal use and not for sale will still have to obtain an appropriate permit in terms of the statutory provisions. It may not be out of place to notice that right to receive royalty is a mineral right as has been held by Wanchoo, J. in Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459 . [See also India Cement Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 12 ] 75. Minerals may be found in mineral-bearing land. Mineral-bearing land may, thus, contain mineral as the product of nature. 76. Thus, in a case it may be theoretically possible for the State to grant a mining lease of quarry or permit, in favour of an applicant in respect of an area over which a mineral right is also held by a private owner but in that event the private owner would be only entitled to royalty. 76. Thus, in a case it may be theoretically possible for the State to grant a mining lease of quarry or permit, in favour of an applicant in respect of an area over which a mineral right is also held by a private owner but in that event the private owner would be only entitled to royalty. The legislative intent contained in the 1957 Act envisages that even in certain cases the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in the event of their undertaking of mining operations from the land belonging to the private owners may have to pay royalty to them. The rate of royalty, however, will be limited to the amount prescribed in the 1957 Act or the rules framed thereunder. 77. The amount of compensation, therefore, in view of the statutory provisions will depend upon several factors, as noticed hereinbefore. In any event, the profit earned by illegal mining i.e. carrying on mining operations contrary to the 1957 Act or the rules framed thereunder, would by no means be a safe criteria for determining the amount of compensation.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The matter therefore stands remanded back to the Reference Court specifically for the purpose of looking into the mining licence/permission and other relevant documents issued by the competent authority in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1994 or any other Rules prior to the said Rules, holding the field, since admittedly mining licence was granted in favour of the appellant, first in the year 1970. The Reference Court shall find out as to whether the competent authority, while granting the mining licence in favour of the appellant collected ‘Average Additional Periodic Payment’ in addition to the royalty, as provided in sub-rule (10) of Rule 32. If it is found that such Average Additional Periodic Payment was collected while issuing the licence in favour of the appellant, then it can be concluded that the mineral rights of the limestone deposits in the lands in question or any other minor mineral did not vest with the appellant. On the other hand, if such Average Additional Periodic Payment was not collected, then it can be concluded that the competent authority and the State have admitted to the appellant’s mineral rights of the minor minerals in the lands in question. On the other hand, if such Average Additional Periodic Payment was not collected, then it can be concluded that the competent authority and the State have admitted to the appellant’s mineral rights of the minor minerals in the lands in question. After arriving at such decision, the Reference Court may proceed to consider the claim of the appellant for award of compensation in respect of the limestone deposits in the acquired land and pass a judgment in accordance with law. 14. While reconsidering the material already available on record, if the Reference Court feels that sufficient information is not available which would throw light on whether the competent authority has levied and collected the Average Additional Periodic Payment or not, the Reference Court may call upon the parties to lead further evidence and place additional evidence on record. 15. For the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous First Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned common judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed in LAC No.173 of 2003 and connected matters, is hereby set aside. 16. The parties are directed to appear before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Bagalkot on 01.08.2023, without waiting for further notice. The learned Senior Civil Judge shall endeavor to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from 01.08.2023. 17. The parties are also directed to co-operate with the Reference Court and ensure that the court can dispose of the matters within the time stipulated by this Court. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.