# [1976] 3 S.C.R. 688

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 688
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-03-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 840 to 860' of 1975
- **Bench:** Ray, M. H. Beg, R. S. Sarkaria, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1976-3-s-c-r-688-6800
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

A1ines and Minerals (Regulation and Developn1en1) Act, 67 of 1957-
•
Section 16(1)(b)-Scop• of,
Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973-J/ repugnant to the prorisions of Central Act.
Mandamus-Issue of-Petitioner should first call upon the authority to disC
charge legal obligation.
D
E
F
G
H
State111e11t of Objects and Reasons-When could be used in interpretation.
f'•lew qucs!ions---JVhen COt{ld be raised.
On the strength of entries in the (wajib-ul-arz) (village administration papers)
of some villages the State Government considered itself to be the owner
of saltpetre deposits.
By a notification it declared safipetre as a minor mineral
and auctioned the mines in accordance with the Punjab ~Iinor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1964 made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Developn1ent) Act _67 of 1957. In a writ petition the High
Court held that, unless the mineral deposits were specifically mentioned in the
Wajib-ul-arz _Qt a village, as having vested in the State, their ownei·ship would
still remain vested in the {ormer proprietors according to the record of rights.
To meet this situation, the State legislature passed the Haryana
Minerals
(Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973. Since the owners of the lands had haphazardly
created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Rules, 1964, t\vo notifications were issued \Vith the object of the conservation as well as of scientific exploitation of mineral resources. By , one notification-- the State Government
purported to acquire rights to saltpetre· in the lands and by the second
it
announced that certain saltpetre bearing areas would be auctioned.
In a writ petition under J\rt. 226, the High Court held (i) that in view of
the declaration contained in s. 2 of the Central Act the field covered by the
impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central legislation so that the
State Act was inoperative and void for repugnancy and quashed the two notifications; 3.nd (ii) that rights in such lands had continued to vest in the former
owners of estates despite acquisitions of other parts of their estates.
The respondents in the a-Qpeals containded that the declaration in s. 2 of
the Central Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should
take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals
would become unwGrkable if the provisions of the State Act \Vere _permitted
to operate.
While the appeals were pending writ petitions were filed in this Court under
Article 32.
The petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have asserted
rights as holders of mining leases granted by persons who had been entered as
proprietors of estates in the record of rights and that the State under the
State Act had \\-Tongly acquired the right to mineral deposits in their forn1er
lands.
It was contended that the effect of the State Act was only to change the
ownership without interfering with the regulation of leasehold or licensee ·rights
in minerals under the- Central Act.
Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the writ petitions,
HELD: (i) The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, is
valid, as· it is not, 1in any way, repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and
I
•
' r
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
689
1'.Iinerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957. made by Parliament.
A
Ownership rigIJts could be and have been validly acquired by the State Government under the State Act.
[710G]
(ii) No rights are shown by any petitioner to have been conferred upon
him under any lease or licence executed in accordance with the provisions
of the Central Act, but, any petitioner, either before the Hiuh Court ·or in this
Court, who can establish any such right governed by the~ provisions of the
Central Act 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate court.
as may still be open to him under the law, against any such action or Government notification as is alleged to infringe that right. [71 OHl
(iii) Any

## Text

_Characters 0–39,767 of 70,112. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39767 for what follows._

688
A
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
V,
CHANAN MAL ETC.
March 18, 1976
B
[A. N, RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
A1ines and Minerals (Regulation and Developn1en1) Act, 67 of 1957-
•
Section 16(1)(b)-Scop• of,
Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973-J/ repugnant to the prorisions of Central Act.
Mandamus-Issue of-Petitioner should first call upon the authority to disC
charge legal obligation.
D
E
F
G
H
State111e11t of Objects and Reasons-When could be used in interpretation.
f'•lew qucs!ions---JVhen COt{ld be raised.
On the strength of entries in the (wajib-ul-arz) (village administration papers)
of some villages the State Government considered itself to be the owner
of saltpetre deposits.
By a notification it declared safipetre as a minor mineral
and auctioned the mines in accordance with the Punjab ~Iinor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1964 made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Developn1ent) Act _67 of 1957. In a writ petition the High
Court held that, unless the mineral deposits were specifically mentioned in the
Wajib-ul-arz _Qt a village, as having vested in the State, their ownei·ship would
still remain vested in the {ormer proprietors according to the record of rights.
To meet this situation, the State legislature passed the Haryana
Minerals
(Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973. Since the owners of the lands had haphazardly
created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Rules, 1964, t\vo notifications were issued \Vith the object of the conservation as well as of scientific exploitation of mineral resources. By , one notification-- the State Government
purported to acquire rights to saltpetre· in the lands and by the second
it
announced that certain saltpetre bearing areas would be auctioned.
In a writ petition under J\rt. 226, the High Court held (i) that in view of
the declaration contained in s. 2 of the Central Act the field covered by the
impugned Act was already fully occupied by the Central legislation so that the
State Act was inoperative and void for repugnancy and quashed the two notifications; 3.nd (ii) that rights in such lands had continued to vest in the former
owners of estates despite acquisitions of other parts of their estates.
The respondents in the a-Qpeals containded that the declaration in s. 2 of
the Central Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should
take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals
would become unwGrkable if the provisions of the State Act \Vere _permitted
to operate.
While the appeals were pending writ petitions were filed in this Court under
Article 32.
The petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have asserted
rights as holders of mining leases granted by persons who had been entered as
proprietors of estates in the record of rights and that the State under the
State Act had \\-Tongly acquired the right to mineral deposits in their forn1er
lands.
It was contended that the effect of the State Act was only to change the
ownership without interfering with the regulation of leasehold or licensee ·rights
in minerals under the- Central Act.
Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the writ petitions,
HELD: (i) The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973, is
valid, as· it is not, 1in any way, repugnant to the provisions of the Mines and
I
•
' r
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
689
1'.Iinerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957. made by Parliament.
A
Ownership rigIJts could be and have been validly acquired by the State Government under the State Act.
[710G]
(ii) No rights are shown by any petitioner to have been conferred upon
him under any lease or licence executed in accordance with the provisions
of the Central Act, but, any petitioner, either before the Hiuh Court ·or in this
Court, who can establish any such right governed by the~ provisions of the
Central Act 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate court.
as may still be open to him under the law, against any such action or Government notification as is alleged to infringe that right. [71 OHl
(iii) Any petitioner who applied fur a' wril or unler in the natuie of
J.
mandamus should, in compliance with a well-known rule of·practice, ordinarily,
first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show
that it had refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before
applying to a court for such an order even \vhere the alleged
obli~ation is
established.
[71 IB)
1. (a) It is difficult to sustain the respondents' contention that the provisions of the Central Act would be really unworkable by mere change of ownership of land in which mineral deposits were found.
The character of the
State Act has to be judged by the substance and effect of its provisions and not
n1crely by the purpose given in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. [706C]
(b) The provisions of the Central Act show that subject to the overall supervision of the Central Government the State Government ha~ a sphere of its
B
c
own powers and can take legally specified actions under the Central_ Act and
U
rules.
Thus, the whole field of control and regulation under the provisions of
•
the Central Act cannot be said to he reservecl for the Central Government.
[698BJ
(c) The stated objects and reasons of the State J\ct showed that the acquisition was to be made to protect the mineral potentialities of the land and to
ensure their proper development and exploitation on scientific lines. If this
wa.s the actual purpose behind the Act it did not materially differ from that
which could be said to lie behind the c:entral Act.
[692E]
E
(d) The provisions contained in s. 16 ( 1) (b) show that Parliament ics~lf
contemplated state legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits
in the State Government. It only required that rights to mining granted in
such land should be regulated by the provisions of Act 67 of 1957 as amended in 1972. This feature could only be explained on the assumption that
Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State legislatures under
entry 18 of List II read with entry 42 of List Ill. Again, s. 17 of the Central
Act shows that there \Vas no intention to interfere \Vith vesting of lands i.n the
F
States by the provisions of the Central Act. t707B-C]
(e) There is no force in the contention of the responderits that the vesting
contemplated bys. 16(l)(b) as it no\v stands must b~ of "estates" of proprietors or lands of tenureholders under some legislation for agrarian reform.
Article 31A of the Constitution is not confined to legislation for agrarian
reform. Agrarian reform is only oile of the possible or alternative objects of
such acauisition.
Tt need not be the exclusive or only purpose of State legisG
lation contemplated by s. 16 ( 1) (b) of the Central Act.
Power to legislate
for the acquisition of the whole of an estate or 'tenure· \Vould include the power
to legislate for any part of it. [707 D-E]
_..-<(
Hingir-Ra1npur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State
of
Orissa &
Ors.,
[1961) 2 S.C.R. 537; State of West Bengal v. Union of India, [19641 1 S.C.R.
371; Stale of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co., [1964] (4) S.C.R. 461 & Baijnath Kedia v. The State of Bihar, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100, held inapplicable.
(2) The lessee and licensee rights governed by the Central Act or rules
H
are not covered by the State Act. It is clear from s. 3 (2) of the State Act
that the provisions of this Act were to be read subject to the provisions made
by or unde-i: the Central Act. The State Act did not and could not upso facto
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
tern1inate either lcs~ce or licensee rights which were subsisting on the date when·
the State Act. came into force.
On the other hand. s. 9 of the Central Act
56 of 1972, whi~h amende~ s. J 6 of. the principal Act, made it imperativefor such lessee nghts as existed 1n estates (which had vested in a State Government) to be brought into conformity with the Central Act.
Therefore. if
the:e \verc no lessee or licensee rights of mining in minor minerals on land
\
wh1c.h \Vere actually regulated by the provisions of the· Central Act they would
B
c
D
F
G
continue.
[708H1
).
In the instant case, however, it was not shown how the notification of
auctions of mining rights <i.ffected any subsisting rights of any alleged Jessee
or licensee. It has not b:!cO shown that any lessee or licensee asked the State ·
Governn1ent to carry out any statutory or contractual -6bligation before he
invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or this Court. The essential
a\'ermenh to dbclose
subsisting rights or the
locus standi of the pttitioncrs
\Vere \\·anting in these petitions.
r709Al
'(3) In the second b::itch of petitions, the only dispute between the parties
related to the vesting of ownershio rights in minor minerals in those plots.
The petitioners have come to this Court as lessees and not ns owners.
Rights
of former owners have l;>een validly terminated by the State A.ct.
It is difficult to make out from these petitions how any lessee rights acquired by the
petitioners theinselves under any law subsisted or were affected by the notifications.
[710E-F]
( 4) The statement of objects and reasons is relevant when the object or·
purp05e of an enactment is in .dispute or uncertain. It c_an never override
the effect \vhich follows logically from the explicit anU unmistakable language
of its substantive provisions. Such effect is the best evidence of intention. A,
statement of objects ~nd reasons is not a part of the statute, and. therefore,.
it is not even relev~nlt in a case in which the language of the operative parts:
of the Act le11ves no reyorn. what.-;oever, to doubt what was meant by the legis.-
lators.
[706D~ll]
Jn the instant case it j5 not disputed that the object and effect of
thcr
State Act was to acquire proprietary rights to miner.al
depos~ts in "la?d':.
Its provisions, ho,vever, do not mention leasehold or licensee rights.
This ts
so because these rights were governed by the Central Act 67 of 1957.
( 5) It is not correct to say that any nc\v question wa.s al19wed to. be
raised simply because the parties were permitted to place their points of vieyt
on the same auestion after taking into account the changes brought about In
Ai.:t 67 of 1957 bv Act 56 of 1972 and ho\V earlier decisions of this Court,
which \Vere given before tbe amendments came into force, could be
at
all
helpful in d~ciding the questions. The Court is bound to take judicial notice
of the law as it exists and not the law as it once was.
[706GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 840 to 860'
of 1975.
From the Judgments and orders dated 7-5-74, _27-8-74, 2-9~74 and
10-9-74 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court m ClVll
Wnt Nos.
1133, 1118, 1180, 1208, 1225, 1226, 1231,
1238,
1277,
1251.
1352/74 and 1188, 1198, 1221/74 and L.P.As. Nos. 395 and
399'
of 1974 respectively and
Writ Petitions 1309-1318 and 1371-1373/75
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
•
+
•
H
M. C. Bhandare, (In Cas. 844-860/75) and L. N. Singhvi (In·
all Writ Petitions) and R. N. Sachthey for the Appellant and Respon--
dents.
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, ].)
691
S. Gopal Singh and P. Keshwa Pillai for 1he Petitioners in W.P.
1371-73/75.
Horh,?11s Singh Manvah for the Petitioners in W.P. 1371-73/75.
A
1
k K. Sen, Kapil Sibbal, S. K. Jain and S. S. Khanduja for the
~
Respondents excepting C.As. 852, 853 and 855/75.
..
t
•
Na:u1it Lal for the Intervener in C.A. 845/75 Ch. Dhyan Singh
etc .
Tk J urlgmcnt or the Court was delivered by
llEG, J.
The seventeen appeals before us by the State
and by
the Director of Industries of Harvana, after certification under Article 133 ( 1) (a) (b) of the constitution, are directed against a Judgment of
the H'gh Court 01" Pu:ijab and Haryana on Writ Petition of owners ot
lands and lessees of mineral rights in land seeking reliefs in the nature
of Mandamus to enforce fundamental rights
conferred
by
Article
31(2) and to restrain the Government of Haryana from taking any
action to implement two notifications void' (i) No.
1217-2-1-B-II74/7622 dated the 20th February, 1974; and, (ii) No. GIG/SP I Aue/
1173/3075-C, dated the 22nd February, 1974, after .declaring. the
Haryana '.\1inerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973 (hercmafter referred
to as 'the Haryana Act') .
c
D
Under the notification of 20th February, 1974, the State Government purported to acquire rights to Saltpetre, a minor mineral in the
land described in a schedule appended to the notification issued in
exercise oi' power conferred by Section 3, sub. section
(i)
of
the
E
Haryana Act.
By the notification of 22nd February, 1974, the State
Govcr11111..;nt •announced to the general public that certain saltpetre
bearing areas in the State of Haryana, mentioned therein, would be
auctioned on the dates given there.
The notifications have not been
placed before us.
But, from the avcr1nents in
the
sta:cn1ents
on
behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents in the
affidavits supporting their respective cases in proceedings for a stay
F·
of the operation of the High Court's judgment, it appears
that the
intention of the State was to acquire Saltpetre deposits in lands whose
owners had granted mining leases claimed by petitioners in the High
Court to be· subsisting.
The auctions advertised were
probably
of
fresh lessee rights.
Whether the auctions were to be of ownership or
lessee rights in lands, the result was that one owner or one lessee was
to be substituted by another in each case as a result of acquisition and
G
sale.
The State was to get the difference between the price of acquisition and amount realised on sale of each part sold.
The apparent
effect of mere change of owners or lessees was that the State of Haryana
would benefit financially from the acquisitions and sales, although the
object of the Haryana Act was said to include conservation as well as
"scientific exploitation" of mineral resources.
The case of the appellant State also seemed to be that the owners of lands had "haphazardly"
H'
created lessee rights in contravention of the Puniab Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 1954, made under the provisions of the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957 (hereinafter
8
c
If)
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
'
referred to as the Central Act'). Learned Counsel for the appellant
State contended that the Haryana Act was only meant to supplement
and not supplant the Central Act.
The State claimed to be dealing
with lessee rights under the Central Act and not under the Haryana
Act at all.
The case of the petitioners in the High Court was :
Firstly, that the Haryana Act was beyond the competence of the
State Legislature inasmuch as the field in which this Act operated was
necessarily occupied already by the provisions of the Central Act
enacted under entry No. 54 of the Union List (List I) of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution which reads as follows :
"54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to
the extent to which such regulation and development under
the control of the Union is d~clared by Parliament by law to
be expedient in the public interest".
Secondly, that the purported acquisition under the Haryana Act
offended the provisions of Article 31 (2) inasmuch as it was neither for
a public purpose nor for adequate compensation, the provision for
compensation in the Act being, according to the petitioners, illusory.
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions
and quashed the impugned notifications after declaring the Act to be
ultra-vires. It also held that the Haryana Act violated Article 31 (2J.
It found the compensation provided by the Haryana Act to be grossly
low and illusory, although its view was that, judging from the
statement of reasons and objects of the, Haryana Act, a public purpose was
made
out.
The
stated
reasons
and
objec~
of
the
Haryana Act showed that the acquisition was to 'be made to protect
the mineral potentialities of the land and to ensure their proper development and exploitation on scientific lines. If this was the actual
purpose behind the Haryana Act it did not materially differ from that
which could be said to lie behind the Central Act.
The real question, however, was not whether any of the purposes
of the two Acts were common but whether the provisions of the Central Act so operated as necessarily to exclude, in carrying out their
objects, the operation of the State Act.
The High Court had held that,
in view of the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Central Act,
and decisions of. this Court in the Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd.
&
Ors. v. The State of Orissa & Ors.(1), State of West Bengal v. Union
of Jndia( 2 ), State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co.(3), and Baijnath
Kedia v. The State of Bihar('), the field covered by the impugned
Act was already fully occupied by the Central Legislation so that the
State Act had to be held to be inoperative· and void for repugnancy.
Section 2 of the Central Act lays down :
"It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public
interest that the Union should take under its control the
(1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 537.
(2) [1%4] 1 S.C.R. 371.
(3) [1964] 4 S.C.R. 461.
(4) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100.
\
..
+
•
I
•
+
•
•
Hf·,RYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
693
/
regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the
A
extent hereinafter provided".
Section 3 (a) of this Act says :
·' 'minerals' includes all minerals except mineral oils;"
Section 3 ( c) reads :
" 'mining lease' means a lease granted for the purpose of
undertaking mining operations, and includes
a
sub-lease
granted for such purpose";
Section 3 ( d) enacts :
" 'mining operations' means any operations undertaken
B
for the purpose of mining any mineral;"
c
Section 3 ( e) elucidates :
'· '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";
Section 3 (g) indicates :
" 'prospecting licence' means a licence granted for
the
purpose of undertaking prospecting operations;"
Section 3 (b) enacts :
" 'prospecting operations' means any operations undertaken for the purpose of exploring locating or proving mineral deposits;"
·
Section 3 ( i) lays down :
" the expressions, 'n1ine' and 'owner', have the meanings
assigned to them in the Mines Act, 1952".
Sections 4 to 9 of the Central Act deal with General Restrictions
on Prospecting and Mining operations.
Section 4 indicates that all
prospecting and mining operations will be governed by the
Central
Act.
But, Section 4A, introduced by Section 2 of the Central Act 56
of 1 972, lays down :
"4A(l) Where the Central Government after consultation with the State Government, is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines
and mineral
development so to do, it may request the State Government
to make a premature termination of a mining lease in respect
ot any mineral, other than a minor mineral, and, on receipt
of such request, the State Government shall make an order
making a premature termination of such mining lease and
granting a fresh mining lease in favour of such Government
~ompany or corporatinn owned or controlled by Government as it may think fit" .
D
E
F
G
H
A
,c
.D
.E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976) 3 S.C.R.
SectioQ 5 concerns restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences
or mmmg leases. It shows that these will be granted by
the State
Government and the Central Government was to give its approval in '\
.certain specified cases only.
Section 6 indicates areas for
which
a
prospectmg licence or mmmg lease or more than one licence or lease
may be granted in any one State.
The Central Government could
make exceptmns to this rule.
Section 7 limits duration of a prospecting licence, which is evidently to be granted by the State Government,
to one year for mica and two years for other mmerals,
subject to
renewai, and,
in the. case of scheduled
minerals,
subject to
approval by Central Government for each grant or renewal.
Similarly, Section 8 provides penods of grant and renewal of leases by the
State Government.
Section 9 deals with Royalties
in
respect
of
mining leases.
Section 9A is conc_erned with the Dead rent to be paid
by the lessee to the State Government subject to the regulation of it
by the Central Government.
•
Sections 10 to 12 of the Central Act contain procedure for obtain- •
ing prospecting licences or mining leases in land in
which
mineral
rights vest in the Government. It is true that it is not specified here
in which Government rights to minerals in any land vest.
But,
the
machinery proyided for applications and for maintaining the registers
of applications for prospecting licences and mining leases shows that
it is the State Government which will be concerned with this
matter
subject to the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Act.
Rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mmmg
leases are to be made by the Central Government according ·to the
detailed provisions of Section 13 and Section 13A.
Section 14, however, lays down :
"14. The provisions of Sections 4 to 13 (inclushe) shall
not apply to quarry leases, mining leases, or other mineral
concessions in respect of minor minerals".
Section 15 makes it clear that it is the State Government which has
the power to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases,
mining leases, or other mineral concessions in respect of ''minor minerals" and for purposes connected therewith.
Section 16(1) of the Central Act enacts : "J 6(1 )(a)
All mining leases granted before the commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, if in force at such commencement, shall be
brought into conformity with the provisions of this Act, and
the rules made thereunder, within six months
from
such
commencement, or such further time as the Central GoYcrnment may, by general or special
order,
specify in this
behalf.
(b) Where the rights under any mining lease, granted
by the proprietor of an estate or tenure before . the
commencement of the Mines anrl Mtnerals
(Regulation
and
Development) Amendment Act, 1972, have vested, on or
•
>--
/
•
..
I
l
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
695
after the 25th day of October, 1949, in the State
Government in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of any Provincial or State Legislature which provides for the acquisition of estates_' or tenures or provides for agrarian
reforn1,
such mining lease shall be brought into conformity with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder within
six months from the commencement
of
the
Mines
and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act.
1972, or within such further time as the Central Government
may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf'.
~Section 16(2) provides for rules to be made by the Central Gcvern-
. ment to carry out the purposes of Section 16 (!) .
A
B
Special powers of Central Govemljlent in respect of mining operaC
tions in certain lands are provided for in Section 17.
Clause (!) of
this Section reads :-
" 17 ( 1) The provisions of this Section shall apply in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government
of a State or any other person".
·Clause (2) of Section 17 provides ·for undertakings by the Central
D
Government, in consultation with the State Government, of prospecting or mining operations "in any area not already held
under
any
prospectmg licence or mining lease .... ".
Section 17 ( 3) makes the
Central Government liable in such cases to pay the State Government
prospe~ting· fee, royalty, surface rent, or dead rent, as the case n1ay be,
at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Ac,
if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a
E
private person under a .prospecting licence or mining lease. Section
17 ( 4) contains pov./crs of the Central Government,
in
consultation
with the State Government, to prohibit grant of prospecting or n1ining
.leases in any area spccified in a notification.
Section 18, dealing with the development of minerals cnacl3 :
"18(1) It shall be the duty of the Central Governn:ent
to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India, and for that pmpose the Central Government may, by notification
in
the
Official Gazette, make such rnlcs as it thinks fit.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely :-
(a) the opening of new mines and
the
regulation
of
n1ining operations in any area;
(b) the regulation of the excavation
or
collection
of
minerals from any mine;
.( c) the measures to be taken by owners of mines fer tlic
purpose of hencficiafon of ores, including the provision of suitable contrivances for such purpose;
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
(d) the development of mineral resources in any area;
( e) the notification of all new borings and shaft sinkings
and the preservation of bore-hole records, and specimens of cores of all new bore-holes;
(f) the regulation of the arrangements for the storage of
minerals and the stocks thereof that may be kept by
any person;
(g) the submission of samples of minerals from any mine
by the owner thereof and the manner in which and
the authority to which such samples shall be submitted; and the taking of samples of any
minerals
from any mine by the State Government' or any
authority specified by it in that behalf; and
\
(h) the submission by owners of mines of such special
or periodical returns and reports as may be :;pecified,
_.+.
and the form in which and the authority to
which
such returns and reports shall be submitted.
(3) All rules made under this section shall be binding
on the Govermnent".
It should be noted that Section 18 set out above empowers
the
Central Government to make rules for the "conservation and development of minerals in any part of India".
The State Government is not
even entitled under Central Act to be consulted about this
subject,
but it is bound by the rules made on it by the Central Government.
The term "Government'', according to Section 3 (23) of the General
Clauses Act, includes both the Central Government
and
a
State
Govcrnn1ent.
~
Section 1 SA, sub-section ( 1) ·inserted by Section 11 of the Act of
56 of 1972, does, however,
require consultation with
the
State
Government on one matter.
It says :
"18.A(l) Where the Central Government is of opinion
that for the conservation and development of minerals
in
India, it is necessary to collect as precise information
as
possible with regard to any mineral available in or under any
land in relation to which any prospecting licence or mining
lease has been granted, whether by the State Government or
by any other person, the Central Government may authorise
the Geological Survey of India, or such other authority or
agency as it may specify in this behalf, to carry out sucjI
detailed investigations for the purpose of obtaining such
information as may be necessary :
Provided that in the cases of prospecting licences
or
mining leases granted by a State Government, no such authorisation shall be made except after consultation with
the
State Government".
•
I
•
I t
•
...
'i
-~
HARYANA v. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
The remaining clauses (2) to ( 6) of Section 1 SA deal with the conA
sequences of the authorisation of investigation by the Central Government and matters connected therewith.
The proviso to clause
( 6)
dealing with the costs of investigation enacts :-
"Provided that where the State Government or other
person in whom the minerals are vested or the holder of any
prospecting licence or mining lease applies to the Central
Government to furnish to it or him a copy of the report
submitted under sub-section (5), that State Government or
other person or the holder of a prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, shall bear such reasonable part o!
the costs of investigation as the Central Government may
specify in this behalf and shall, on payment of such part of
the costs of investigation, be entitled to receive from the
Central Government a true copy of the report submitted to
it under sub-section (5) ".
Miscellaneous provisions are contained in Sections 19 to 33 of the
Central Act. Here, Section 19 lays down:
"19. Any prospecting licence or mining lease granted,
renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of
this Act or any' rules or orders made thereunder shall be void
and of no effect".
Section 20 enacts :
'·20. The provisions of this Act and
the
rules
made
thereunder shall apply in relation to the renewal aflcr the
commencement of this Act of any prospecting licence
or
mining lease granted before such commencement as
they
apply in relation to the renewal of a prospecting licence cc·
n1!n!r;g lease granted after such commencement".
Section 21 provides for penalties for anyone who contravenes the provisions of Section 4( I) of the Act. Among these miscellaneous provisions is S·xtion 25 recast by Section 14 of Act 56 of 1972.
ll lays
down that :
"Any rent, royalty, tax, fee or other sum due
to the
Government under this Act or the rules made thereunder or
under the terms and conditions of any proS}Jecting Ecencc or
mining lease may, on a certificate of such officer as may be
specified by the State Government in this behalf by general
or special order, be recovered in the same manner
as
an
arrear of land revenue".
Section 25, sub-section (2) shows that these dues are to be specified
either by the Act or by the Rules made thereunder or under the terms
and conditions of any prospective licence or mining lease.
The control, however, is of officers appointed by the State Government.
Section 26 provides for delegation of the powers . of the Central
Government by notification in the official Gazette to either the State
Government or any officer or
authority either subordinate to the
12~608SC!/76
B
c
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
Central Government or the State Government. Section 30 shows that
the orders made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of powers by or under the Central Act are revisable by the Central Government.
Hence, the provisions of the Central Act show
that, subject to the overall supervision of the Central Government, the
State Government has a sphere of its own powers and can take legally
specified actions under the Central Act and rnles made thereunder.
Thus, the whole field of control and regulation under the provisions of
the Central Act 67 of 1957 cannot be said to be reserved for the
Central Government.
As indicated above, there have been some very significant changes
by the Central Act 56 of 1972. These seem to us to make it necessary to reconsider the effect of the declaration contained in Section 2
of the Central Act ·as interpreted by the decisions of this Court so far.
Before outlining the provisions of Haryana Act, we may indicate the
position resulting from the four decisions
mentioned above relied
upon by Punjab & Haryana High Court.
In llingir-Rampur Coal Co's case (supra), the validity of the
Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952, was questioned
on the ground that it authorised the State of Orissa to impose a cess
on the valuation of the minerals.
The State of Orissa had relied upon
entries 23 and 66 of the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule.
Entry 23 of List II is :
"Regulation of mines and mineral development subject
to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and
E
development under the control of the Union".
F
G
H
And entry 66 of List II is :
"Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but
not including fees taken in any court".
The petitioning Coal Co. had relied on entry 84 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule empowering the Parliament alone to impose excise
duty on tobacco and other manufactured goods with the exception of
Alcoholic liquor, opium, Indian hemp, and other narcotics.
It had
also cited, in support of its case, entry 52 of List I of "Industries, the
control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be
expedient in the public interest".
Furthermore, the Coal Company
relied on entry 54 of List I relating to Mines and mineral develop··
ment, already set out above.
This Court held that the imposition of
t11c ccss under the State enactment was really a fee
falling
within
entries 23 and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. It held that the
State Act was neither hit by entry 54, read with Mines and Minerals
Development Act 3 of 1948, nor by entry 52 of List I. The decisi0n
in that case turned on an interpretation of Article 3 72 of the Constitution. It was held that a declaration in the Act of 1948 could not be
equated with a declaration made by the Parliament in a post-Constitution enactment in terms of entry 54 of List I. It was, therefore, not
really a decision on the effect of Section 2 of the Central Act 67 of
1957.
\
'
•
•
•
I
•
I 1
HARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
699
The State of West Bengal v. Union of India (supra) was the case
A
of a suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union. It was
contended, on behalf of West Bengal State, that the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, enacted by Parliament, proposing to acquire certain coal bearing areas in the State, did
not apply to areas owned by the State itself, and, in the alternative,
that, even if it did so apply to areas owned by the State of West
Bengal, it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament be~ause
B
entry 42 in the Concurrent List (List Ill) did not authorise an acquisition of property already vested in the State although this entry in the
Concurrent List merely reads : "acquisition
and
requisitioning
of
property''. It was urged there that, without a constitutional amendment, Parliament could not acquire the property of the State of West
Bengal under the provisions of the impugned Act. It was held there
(at p. 417) :
C
" ... the power of the Union to legislate in respect of
property situate in the States even if the States are regarded
qua the union as Sovereign, remains unrestricted, and the
State property is not immune from its operation.
Exercising powers under the diverse entries
which
have been
referred to earlier, the Union Parliament could legislate so as
to trench upon the rights of the State in the property vested
in them. If exclusion of State property from the purview of
Union legislation is regarded as implicit in those entries in
List I, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Union
Government to carry out its obligations in respect of matters
of national importance".
Learned Counsel for the appellant State before us has relied upon
the case of State of West Bengal (supra) for
contending that the
powers of the State of Haryana to acquire land are not impaired by
the declaration contained in the Central Act.
He cited the rule of
construction stated there as follows (at p. 393) :
"Unless a law expressly or by necessary implication so
D
E
provides, a State is not bound thereby.
This well recognised
F
rule applies to the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, in the absence of any provision express or necessarily
implying that the property of the State could be acquired by
the Union, the rights claimed by the Union to legislate for
acquisition of State property must be negatived."
Applying this rule, he contends that the powers of the State GovernG
ment to acquire land are left intact by the Central Act 67 of 1957.
Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, relied on
another
passage in the State of West Bengal's case (supra)
to submit that
legislative power for acquisition of minerals for their development and
conservation must be deemed to be vested in Parliament now even if
the mineral resources are situated in the State.
He quoted
(at p.
~6):-
H
"By making the requisite declarations under Entries 54
of List I, the Union Parliament assumed power to regulate
A
B
c
lJ
E
l
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
mines and minerals and thereby to deny to all agencies not
under the control of the Union,
authority to work the
mines.
It could scarcely be imagined that the Constitution
makers while intending to confer an exclusive power to work
mines and minerals under the control of the Union,
still
prevented effective exercise of that power by making it
impossible compulsorily to acquire the land vested in
the
States containing minerals.
The effective exercise of
the
power would depend-if such an argument is acccptcd-noL
upon the exercise of the power to undertake regulation and
control by issuing a notification under Entry 54, but upon
the will of the State in the territory of which mineral bearing
land is situate.
Power to legislate for regulation and development of mines and minerals under the control of the
Union, would by necessary implication include the power to
acquire mines and minerals.
Power to legislate for acquisition of property vested in the States cannot therefore
be
denied to the Parliament if it be exercised consistently with
the protection afforded by Art. 31."
ln the two cases discussed above no provision of the Central Act
67 of 1957 was under consideration by this Court.
Moreover, power
to acquire for purposes of development and regulation has not been
exercised by Act 67 of 1957.
The existence of power of Parliament
to legislate on this topic as an incident of exercise of legislative power
on another subject is one thing. Its actual exercise is another. It is
di!licult to see how the field of acquisition could become occupied by
a Central Act in the same way as it had been in the West Bengal's case
(supra) even before Parliament legislates to acquire lanci in a State.
Atlcast until Parliament has so legislated as it was shewn to have
done by the statute considered by this Court in the case from West
Bengal. the field is free for State legislation falling under the express
provisions of entry 42 of List III.
Jn State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co. (supra) the provisions
of the Central Act 67 of 1957 were considered by this Court directly.
In this case, the legality of certain demands as fee under the Orissa
Act 27 of 1952, the validity of which had been upheld by this Court
in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case (supra), came up for consideration again in the light of the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957.
It \Vas contended on behalf of the StJ.te of Orissa that thl~ objects and
purposes of the Orissa Act and of lhc Central Act were entirely distinct and different so that they could validly co-exist since neither trespassed into the field of the other. It was pointed out there that this
Court had indicated, in the Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case (supra)
that, ii the declaration in the 1948 Act relied upon by the petitioner
in that case had been made after our Constitution became operative)
the position would have been different.
Reliance was placed
upon
the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Act to hold (at p. 477)
"Rcpugnancy arises when two enactments both· within
the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the
\
..
t
•
I
•
•
i
l!ARYANA V. CHANAN MAL (Beg, J.)
70 I
Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides
that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over
the other than to the extent of the repugnancy the
one
supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them
is possible without disobeying the other.