# ~VINODKUMAR SHANTILAL GOSALIA v. GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGARWAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1982] 1 S.C.R. 392
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1981-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Writs Nos. 712, 712 A, 712 B & 712-C of 1968
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A.O. Koshal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vinodkumar-shantilal-gosalia-v-gangadhar-narsingdas-agarwal-ors-8293
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act, 1962 ( 1 of 1962) S. 5(i); Goa,
Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation 1962 (12 of 1962) S. 2(a), 3(1) and 4(2);
Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Derelopn1ent) Act, 1957, S. 4 and Mineral
Concession Rules 1960, Rule 38-Scope of.
Mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu-Title of manifest obtained frorn
Portuguese Colonial Government-Purchased from Manifestor-App/icatton for
mining concession made-Application pending conJideration-Acquisition o,f Goa by
India-Rights accrued under Portuguese law whether suriiive-Whether can be
enforced against the new Government.
Words and Phrases-' Legal Proreedings'-Meaning of-Goa, Daman and
Diu (law) Regulation 1962, S. 4(i).
Matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of m1n1ng rights in Goa,
Daman and Diu during the Portuguese rule, were gov~rnment by the "Portuguese
Colonial Mining Laws". Under those laws a person could, make a declaration"
in writing stating that "he has discovered a mineral deposit". Such a declaration
was called a "Mining Manifest" and the person making the declaration was
called a "Manifestor". The object of making a Mining Manifest was to acqllire
mining rights from the Government in respect of the area covered by the
Manifest. On verification, the concerned authorities would prepare a "Notice
of Manifest". The Notice of Manifest was an acknowledgment by public
authorities of the authenticity of the Mining Manifest and it was a step-in-aid to
the grant of mining rights. The Notice of Manifest was foUowed by the grant
of "Title of Manifest", "a certificate in terms of the note of manifest pertaining
to the legal right to concession", and entitled the manifestor to a "Mining
Concession" under which he was permitted "to explore a mining property and
to enjoy thereon all mining rights". The mining concession was 'unlimited in
duration as Jong as the concessionaire complied with the conditions which the
law and title of concession imposed on him".
Article 119 of the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws provided that a
"prospecting license" was not transferable but by article 120, a Title of Manifest
was transferable by simple endorsement on the original title, duly executed in
terms of Article 60.
The territories comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu under the Portuguese
rule were annexed by the Government of India by conquest on December 20,.
)
-
I
-
\
V.S. GOSALIA V. G.N. AGARWAL
393
1961. These territories became a part of India, and for the purpose of m1king
provision for their administration, the President of India, promulgated on March
5, 1962 the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance. On March 27,
1962 the Indian Parliament enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu lAdministration)
Act 1of19621eplacing the aforesaid ordinance with effect from March 5, 1962.
On the same date, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment)
Act, 1962 whereby Goa, Daman and Diu were added as Entry 5 in Part II of the
First Schedule to the Constitution, and as clause (d} in Article 240 of the
Constitution, with retrospective effect from December 20, 1961. Goa, Daman
and Diu thus became a part of the Union Territories of Iadia with effect from
the date of their annexation by conquest.
On November 28, 1962 the President promulgated the Goa, Daman and
Diu (Laws) Regulation No. 12 of 1962. The various Acts specified in the Schedule
to the Regulation were extended to Goa, Daman and Diu, one of such Acts
being the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. S:ction
4 of the Regulation provided for the repeal and saving of l1ws.
By a notification
issued by the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu under section 3 of the
Regulation, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, were made applicable to Goa, Daman
and Diu with effect from October 1, J963.
On September 5, 1958 one "K" obtained four Titles of Manifest from the
Portuguese Government, and sold those Manifests to Respondent No. 1 some~
time i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 65,281. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
392
~VINODKUMAR SHANTILAL GOSALIA
v.
GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGARWAL & ORS.
August 26, 1981
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND
A.O. KOSHAL, JJ.J
Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act, 1962 ( 1 of 1962) S. 5(i); Goa,
Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation 1962 (12 of 1962) S. 2(a), 3(1) and 4(2);
Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Derelopn1ent) Act, 1957, S. 4 and Mineral
Concession Rules 1960, Rule 38-Scope of.
Mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu-Title of manifest obtained frorn
Portuguese Colonial Government-Purchased from Manifestor-App/icatton for
mining concession made-Application pending conJideration-Acquisition o,f Goa by
India-Rights accrued under Portuguese law whether suriiive-Whether can be
enforced against the new Government.
Words and Phrases-' Legal Proreedings'-Meaning of-Goa, Daman and
Diu (law) Regulation 1962, S. 4(i).
Matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of m1n1ng rights in Goa,
Daman and Diu during the Portuguese rule, were gov~rnment by the "Portuguese
Colonial Mining Laws". Under those laws a person could, make a declaration"
in writing stating that "he has discovered a mineral deposit". Such a declaration
was called a "Mining Manifest" and the person making the declaration was
called a "Manifestor". The object of making a Mining Manifest was to acqllire
mining rights from the Government in respect of the area covered by the
Manifest. On verification, the concerned authorities would prepare a "Notice
of Manifest". The Notice of Manifest was an acknowledgment by public
authorities of the authenticity of the Mining Manifest and it was a step-in-aid to
the grant of mining rights. The Notice of Manifest was foUowed by the grant
of "Title of Manifest", "a certificate in terms of the note of manifest pertaining
to the legal right to concession", and entitled the manifestor to a "Mining
Concession" under which he was permitted "to explore a mining property and
to enjoy thereon all mining rights". The mining concession was 'unlimited in
duration as Jong as the concessionaire complied with the conditions which the
law and title of concession imposed on him".
Article 119 of the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws provided that a
"prospecting license" was not transferable but by article 120, a Title of Manifest
was transferable by simple endorsement on the original title, duly executed in
terms of Article 60.
The territories comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu under the Portuguese
rule were annexed by the Government of India by conquest on December 20,.
)
-
I
-
\
V.S. GOSALIA V. G.N. AGARWAL
393
1961. These territories became a part of India, and for the purpose of m1king
provision for their administration, the President of India, promulgated on March
5, 1962 the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance. On March 27,
1962 the Indian Parliament enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu lAdministration)
Act 1of19621eplacing the aforesaid ordinance with effect from March 5, 1962.
On the same date, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment)
Act, 1962 whereby Goa, Daman and Diu were added as Entry 5 in Part II of the
First Schedule to the Constitution, and as clause (d} in Article 240 of the
Constitution, with retrospective effect from December 20, 1961. Goa, Daman
and Diu thus became a part of the Union Territories of Iadia with effect from
the date of their annexation by conquest.
On November 28, 1962 the President promulgated the Goa, Daman and
Diu (Laws) Regulation No. 12 of 1962. The various Acts specified in the Schedule
to the Regulation were extended to Goa, Daman and Diu, one of such Acts
being the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. S:ction
4 of the Regulation provided for the repeal and saving of l1ws.
By a notification
issued by the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu under section 3 of the
Regulation, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, were made applicable to Goa, Daman
and Diu with effect from October 1, J963.
On September 5, 1958 one "K" obtained four Titles of Manifest from the
Portuguese Government, and sold those Manifests to Respondent No. 1 some~
time in 1959. The sale was in conformity with the Portuguese Laws and was
duly attested by a Notary Public in Goa. On Septe1nber 4, 1959, Respondent
No. 1 made four applications, one in respect of each Manifest, to the Governor
General of Portugal, for demarcation of the area in respect of wllich the mineral
concession was sought. On September 17, 1959 Respondent No
1 presented
four applications attaching to them certain other documents and on September
24, 1959 he paid the balance of the fee prescribed for the grant of mineral
concessions.
On the date on which the Act was extendej to Goa, Dam1n and Diu, the
applications made by respondent 1 on September 4 and 17, 1959 to the Governor~
General of Portuguese Goa were pending consideration for the grant of mineral
concessions. Similar applications filed by other persons w~re also pending on
that date. On September 16, 1964, the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines,
Goa, informed respondent 1 that since his applications for mineral concessioas
had not been granted prior to October 1, 1963 when the Rules came into force, the
said applications were deemed to have lapsed. He was however asked to submit
fresh applications for grant of mineral coacessions which would be coasidered
on merits. On October 5, 1964 the Secretary of the Goa Mineral Ore Exporters
Association made a representation to the Government, requesting that all cases
in which applications were made and mineral con~es~ion fees were paid prior to
October 1, 1963 should be treated by the Government sympathetically and
mineral concessions granted.
On October 17, 1964 the appellant applied for a prospecting licence in
respect of a large area, which included the four areas for which respondent 1 had
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!982) J S.C.R.
applied for a mining concession during the Portuguese rule. In September 1965,
the Government of Goa, decided to grant a prospecting licence to the appellant
in respect of the whole area for which he had applied and sought approval of the
Central Government under section 5(2) of the Act. As the application, was not
granted wirhin the time limit prescribed by the Rules, it w1s deemed to have
been rejected. However, the Central Government on February 10, 1966 acting
under S. 30 of the Act restored the application of the appellant and made a recom·
mendation to the State Government that a prospecting licence should be granted
to him in respect of certain area which included the area for which respondent 1
had applied to the Portuguese Government in September 1959. In pursuance of
the Central Government's recommendation, the State Government granted to the
appellant a prospecting licence on February 26, 1966.
On August 16, 1966 respondent 1 made four applications for mining leases
in respect of the very same area for which he had applied for mineral concessions
during the Portuguese rule and in respect of which the Government of Goa had,
granted a prospecting licence to the appellant on February 26, 1966.
The appellant applied for mining lease on May 8, 1967.
The State Government having delayed the grant to the appellant, he filed a revision application
under rule 54 of the Rules against the deemed refusal of his application. On
April 20, 1969 the revision application was allowed by the Central Government
which directed the State Government to grant a mining lease to the appellant in
respect of a smaller area. This area covered the area in respect of which respondent 1 was agitating his right to obtain a mining lease.
In between, upon the rejection of his revision application by the Central
Government in September 1967, respondent 1 filed a writ petition challenging
the orders of the Government refusing to grant a mining lease to him in respect
of the four areas for which he had applied on August 16, 1966, contending that
by virtue of the four titles of manifest duly transferred in his favour he had
acquired an indefeasible right to obtain concessions over the said area even
prior to the annexation of Goa, that he had presented applications and paid the
necessary fees prior to the annexation, and that therefore, the right which had
accrued in his favour could not be considered as having lapsed on the annexation.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated
September 16, 1964, September 18, 1967 and September 29, 1967 whereby respon·
dent l's applications for mining leases and his revision applications were rejected
by the Government. The High Court also quashed the order dated February 26,
1966 whereby a prospecting licence was granted to the appellant and directed
the State Government to treat the applications of respondent 1 dated September
4 and September 17, 1959 as still subsisting and to dispose them of.
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant,_
that there was an interregnum between December 20, 1961 when the Government
of India annexed Goa, and March 5, 1962 when the Administration Act was.
brought into force, as a result of which, laws which were in force in ;.Portuguese
I
./
-
\
V,S. GOSALIA v. G.N. AGARWAL
395
Goa immediately before the annexation of Goa ceased to apply to that territory
with effect from December 20, 1961 until March 5, !962. By section 5( 1) of tho
Administration Act, it was only with effect from March 5, 1962 that such laws
continued in force in the annexed territory. Since respondent 1 had made his
applications for mining leases or mining concessions under the Portuguese law
and since that law itself ceased to apply to the conquered territory with effect
from the date of conquest, the applications lapsed on that date. The "Titles of
Manifest" obtained by respondent I under those laws conferred upon him no
vested right to obtain the mineral concessions or mining leases. They only
enabled him to apply for concessions, since the Title of Manifest under the
Portuguese law was no more than what a prospecting licence is under the Indian
law of mining.
On behalf of respondent I it was contended that by virtue of tho four Titles
of Manifest which were duly transferred in his favour he had acquired the right
to obtain mineral concessions in respect of the four areas prior to the annexation
of Goa. He had presented the necessary applications within the prescribed
period and he had also paid the necessary fees for obtaining mineral concessions.
Since he was entitled to obtain mineral concessions or mining leases from the
Portuguese Government, he would be entitled to obtain such concessions or
leases from the Government of Goa also. Though, on the extension of the Act
and the
Rules to Goa with effect from October t, 1963, the Portuguese
mining laws stood repealed bY reason of section 4(1) of the Regulation the
previous operation of the Portuguese mining laws so repealed was saved by
rea.son of section 4(2) of the
Regulation.
Suh-section
(2) also saved
anything duly done
or suffered under the Portuguese laws, as also the
right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under
those laws. The applications filed by respondent 1 for the grant of mining
concessions were "legal proceedings" within the meaning of section 4(2) of
the Regulation. Since those proceedings were instituted in accordance with the
Portuguese mining laws on the basis of the right possessed by respondent 1 · to
obtain mining concessions, he was entitled to continue the proceedings as if the
Regulation had not been passed, that is, to say as if the Portuguese mining laws
continued to be in force in the conquered territory of Goa.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : 1. The applications for mineral concessions made by respondent
on the basis of Title Manifests of 1959 had lapsed. Even assuming that those
applications were pending when the Act and the Rules were extended to Goa on
October I, 1963, respondent l's applications could only be decided in conformity
with the Act and the Rules. Section 4 of the Act and rule 38 of the Rules
support this view. Section 21 of the Act makes it penal to do any prospecting
or mining operation otherwise than in accordance with the Act or the Rules.
The Act and the Rules having been made applicable to the territory of Goa on
October I, 1963, and the supposedly pending applications of respondent I not
having been granted within a period of nine months, they must be deemed to
have been refused under rule 24(3) of the Rules. [416 C-E]
2. In cases of acquisition of a territory by conquest, rights which had
accrued under the old laws do not survive and cannot be enforced against the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1982) 1 S.C.R.
new' Government unless it chooses to recognise those rights. In order to
recognise the old rights, it is not necessary for the new Government to continue
the old laws under which those rights had accrued because, old rights can be recognised without continuing the old laws as, for example, by contract or executive
action. On the other hand, the mere continuance of old laws does not imply the
recognition of old rights which had accrued under those laws.
Something more
than the continuance of old laws is necessary in order to support the claim that
old rights have been recognised by the new Government. That •something more•
can be found in a statutory provision whereby rights which had already accrued
under the old laws are saved. In so far as the continuance of old laws is concer~
ned, as a general rule, they continue in operation after the conquest, which means
that the new Governn1ent is at liberty not to adopt them at all or to adopt them
without a break in their continuity or else to adopt them from a date subsequent
to the date of conquest. [413 D.F]
In the instant case there was an interregnum between December 20, 1961 and
March 5, 1962. During that period the old laws of the Portugu:se regime were
not in operation in the conquered territory of Goa. Secondly the rights recognised
under sub-section 2 of section 4 the Regularion did not extend any protection to
the rigty-s which had accrued prior December 20, 1961 but envisaged only such
rights which had come into being after March 5, 1962 by reason of the laws
continued by the Act and the Regulation. Apart from that, the Government
of India never recognisej either during the interregnum or thereafter, any rights
on the basis of titles of manifest obtained by any person during the Portuguese
rule. On September 16, 1964 the Government of India issued an order stating
expressly that all a;iolications for
min~ral concessions made to the Portuguese
Government on the basis of titles of manifei:;t shall be deemed to have lap~:!d.
Thus, far from there being any recognition by the Indian Government of rights
accruing from titles of manifest there is a clear indication th.it it decided not to
reco~nise those rights. For two years after the order of the Governm:!nt of India
dated September 16, 196t, Re~pondent l did not take ;iny steps at all for the
recognition or reassertion of his rights.
He had obtained an order
of refund of
the amount which he ha 1 paid to the Portuguese Governm~n~. It was on August
16, 1966 that he applied for a mining lease ctnder the Tndian Law.
He did so
after the appellant h':l.d obtainej a minin~ kase in h!s favour on F~bruary 26,
1966 and he appli~d for a leas-:: in r0~p?ct of the very sa1n.! areas over which the
appellant was granted a mining lease.
On September 20, 1967 the (;entral
Government rejected the application of respondent 1 for a mining lease and it is
eleven months thereafter that he filed a writ petition challenging the various orders
passed against him and the order by which a mining lease was granted to the
appellant. No right had accrued in favour of respondent 1 under the Portuguese
Jaw and correspondingly, no liability or obligation was incurred by the Portuguese
Government which the Government of India would be under a compulsion to
accept by reason of the provisions contained in section 4 of the Regulation.
[ 413 H-414 A].
Perna Chibar v. Union oflniia, [1965] l SCR 357, applied.
J. Fernarid~s arr1 Co. v. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
and Ors. [1975] 1 SCR 867, 876, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1440-1443
(N) of 1970.
I
)
I
\
'
-
v.s. GOSALIA v. G.N. AGARWAL (Chandrachud, c. J.)
397
From the judgment and order dated the 20th February, 1970
A
of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writs Nos. 712, 712 A, 712 B &
712-C of 1968.
S. N. Kackar, Santosh Chatterjee,
A. K. Panda, K. C. Parija
and G. S. Chatterjee for the appellant.
G. L. Sanghi, Vinod Bobde, B. R. Agarwal, P. G. Gokha/e and
Miss Vasudha Sanghi for Respondent No. I.
M. M. Abdul Khader,
Shobha Dikshit and M. N. Shroff for
Respondents Nos. 2 & 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. : These appeals are by certificates granted
by the Delhi High Court under Article 133 (I) (a) and (c) of the
Constitution in regard to its judgment dated February 20, 1970 in
C. W. No. 712 of 1968.
The dispute in these appeals relates to the prant of mining rights
in respect of an area situated in the villages of Karanzol and Sonau·
Jim in Goa, the rival claimants being the appellant and Respondent
I. Respondent I claims preference over the appellant by reason of
certain events which happend prior to the conquest and annexation
of Goa by the Government ofindia on December 20, 1961. Before
we turn to those events, it would be useful to notice the relevant
provisions of the Mining Laws which were in force in Portuguese
Goa.
During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer
and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu were governed
by the "Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws". Under those laws a
person could, in stated circumstances, make a "declaration" in
writing stating that "he has discovered a mineral deposit". Such a
declaration was called a "Mining Manifest" and the person making
the declaration was called a "Manifestor". The object of making a
Mining Manifest was to acquire mining rights from the Government
in respect of the area covered by the manifest. On verification of the
facts stated in the Manifest, the concerned authorities would prepare
a "Notice of Manifest", by which was meant "the record in a special
.book of prospector's declaration, which in a fixed term will ensure
the exclusive right to 'concession' of a manifested mining property
when such property contains minerals and the manifested land is
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
F
G
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1982) l S.C.R.
free". The Notice of Manifest was thus an acknowledgment by
public authorities of the authenticity of the Mining Manifest. It was
a step-in-aid to the grant of mining rights, since the particular entry
in the special book maintained for keeping the record of mining
manifests ensured the exclusive right of the manifestor to mineral
concession or rights. The Notice of Manifest was followed by the
grant of "Title of Manifest" which meant "a certificate in terms of
the note of manifest, pertaining to the legal right to concession". The
Title of Manifest entitled the manifestor to a 'Mining Concession'
under which he was permitted "to explore a mining property and to
enjoy thereon all mining rights". The mining concession was "unlimited in duration as long as the concessionaire complied with the
co. ditions which the law and title of concession imposed on him".
Article 119 of the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws provided that a
'prospecting license', was not transferable but by article 120, a Title
of Manifest was transferable by simple endorsement on the original
title, duly executed in terms of Article 60.
On September 5, 1958 one V. J. Keny of Goa had obtained
four Titles of Manifest from the Portuguese Government, being
Manifests Nos. 31, 33, 34 and 35 of 1958, in respect of an area
admeasuring about 400 Hectares. Some time in 1959, Keny sold
those Manifests to Respondent 1 for Rs. 33,000/-. The sale was in
conformity with the Portuguese laws and was duly attested by a
Notary Public in Goa. On September 4, 1959, which was one day
before the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which
Keny had obtained the Titles of Manifest from the Portuguese Government, Respondent i made four appli~ations, one in respect of each
Manifest, to the Governor General of Portugal, attaching with
each application the relative Title of Manifest, a challan evidencing
payment of the prescribed fee for the grant of mineral concession
and a challan evidencing deposit of the prescribed mileage fee for
demarcation of the area in respect of which the mineral concession
was sought. On September 17, 1959 Respondent 1 presented four
applications attaching to them certain other documents and on
September 24, 1959 he paid the balance of the fee prescribed for the
grant of mineral concessions.
The territories comprised in Goa, Daman and Diu nnder the
ff
Portuguese rule were annexed by the Government of India by conquest on December 20, 196 I. By virtue of Article I (3) (c) of the
Con~titution of India, these territories became a part of India. For
I
I
v. s. GOSALIA v. G. N. AGARWAL (Chandrachud, c. J.)
399
the purpose of making provision for the administration of the said
territories, the President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred
upon him by Article 123 (I) of the Constitution, promulgated on
March 5, 1962 Ordinance No. 2 of 1962, called the Goa, Daman and
Diu (Administration) Ordinance. On March 27, 1962 the Indian
Parliament enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act,
1 of 1962, replacing the aforesaid Ordinance with effect from March
5, 1962. On the same date, the Parliament enacted the Constitution
(Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962 whereby Goa, Daman and Diu were
added as Entry 5 in Part II of the First Schedule to the Constitution,
and as clause (d) in Article 240 of the Constitution, with retrospective
effect from December 20, 1961. Thus, Goa, Daman and Diu became
a part of the Union Territories of India with effect from the date of
their annexation by conquest.
On November 28, 1962 the President, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 240 of the Constitution, promulgated the Goa,
Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation No. 12 of 1962. The various
Acts specified in the Schedule to the Regulation were extended to
Goa, Daman and Diu one of such Acts being the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Section 4 of the
Regulation provided for the repeal and saving of laws. By a notification issued by the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu under
section 3 of the Regulation, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,
were made applicable to Goa, Daman and Diu with effect from
October 1, 1963. We will refer to these as "The Act" and "The
Rules" respectively.
On the date on which the Act was extended to Goa, Daman
and Diu, the applications made by respondent 1 on September 4 and
17, 1959 to the Governor-General of Portuguese Goa were pending
consideration for the grant of mineral concessions. Similar applications filed by other persons were also pending on that date. On
September 16, 1964, the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines,
Goa, informed respondent 1 that since his applications for mineral
concessions had not been granted prior to October 1, 1963 when the
Rules came iμto force, the said applications were deemed to have
lapsed. Respondent 1 was asked, if he so desired, to submit fresh
applications for grant of mineral concessions in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules which, it was stated, would be
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1982] 1 S.C.R.
-A
considered on merits. It was added that the Government held forth
no assnrance that the consessions would be granted. Similar communications were sent by the Department of Mines to 55 other persons
whose applications were pending before the Portuguese Government
when the Act and the Rules came into force. On October 5, 1964,
B
c
D
E
F
the Secretary of the Goa Mineral Ore Exporters Association made a
representation to the Secretary, Industries and Labour Department,
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, requesting that all cases in
which applications were made and mineral concession fees were paid
prior to October 1, 1963, should be treated by the Government
sympathetically and mineral concessions should be granted.
On October 17, 1964 the appellant applied to the Government
of Goa for a prospecting licence in respect of a total area of 2600
hectares, which included the four areas for which respondent l had
applied for a mining concession during the Portuguese rule. In
September 1965, the Government of Goa decided to grant a prospecting licence to the appellant in respect of the whole area for
which he had applied and sought approval of the Central Government to its proposed action, under section 5(2) of the Act. Since
appellant's application was not granted within the time prescribed
by the Rules, it was deemed to have been rejected.
But on February
10, 1966 the Central Government, acting under section 30 of the
Act, restored the application of the appellant suo ,motu and made a
recommendation to the Government of Goa that a prospecting
licence should be granted to him in respect of an area of 2425
hectares, which included the area in respect of which respondent l
had applied for a mineral concession to the Portuguese Government
in September 1959. In pursuance
of the Central Government's
recommendation, the Government of Goa granted to the appellant
a prospecting licence on February 26, 1966 over an area admeasuring 2425 hectares.
G
On August 16, 1966 respondent l made four applications for
mining leases in respect of the very same area for which he had
applied for mineral concessions during the Portuguese rule and in
respect of which the Government of Goa had, as stated above,
granted a prospecting licence to the appellant on February 26, 1966.
H
Those applications having been rejected by the Government of Goa
on September 29, 1966, respondent I filed revision applications to
the Central Government which were also rejected in September 1967.
)
\
\
-
v. s. OOSALIA v. o. N. AOAWRAL (Chandrachud, c. J.)
401
In pursuance of the prospecting licence granted to him on
February 26, 1966, the appellant applied for a mining lease on May
8, 1967. The State Government having delayed the grant of a
mining lease to the appellant, he filed a revision application to the
Central Government under rule 54 of the Rules against the deemed
refusal of his application. On April 20, 1969, the revision application was allowed by the Central Government which directed the
State Government to grant a mining lease to the appellant in respect
of an area of 918.6050 hectares. This area covers the areas in
respect of which respondent 1 was agitating his right to obtain a
mining lease ever since the Portuguese rule.
In between, upon the rejection of his rev1s10rr application by
the Central Government in September 1967, respondent 1 had filed
a Writ Petition (C.W. No. 712 of 1968) in the Delhi High Court on
July 23, 1968 challenging the orders of the Government refusing
to grant a mining lease to him in respect oi the four areas for wh.ich
he had applied on August 16, 1966. It was contended in the High
Court on behalf of respondent I that by virtue of the four titles of
manifest duly transferred in his favour, he had acquired an indefeasible right to obtain concessions over the four areas in question
even prior to the annexation of Goa, that he had presented applications and paid the
ne~essary fees prior to the said annexation
and that therefore, the right which had accrued in his favour could
not be considered as having lapsed on the an of exation of Goa by
the Government of India. It was stated on behalf of respondent l
that it was out of abundant caution that he made fresh applications
for mining leases to the Government of Goa after the annexation of
Goa. These contentions were refuted on behalf of the appellant
on the ground that the applications filed by respondent I to the
Portuguese Government had lapsed on the annexation of Goa by
the Government of India, that no right had accrued in favour of
respondent 1 which the Government of Goa, after the annexation
of Goa, was under an obligation to recognise and that since the
appellant's application for a mining lease was granted, respondent 1
had no right to ask for a lease in respect of the areas which were
included in the appellant's lease. The High Court allowed respondent l's Writ Petition and quashed the orders dated September 16,
1964, September 18, 1967 and September 29, 1967 whereby respondent l's applications for mining leases and his revision applications
were rejected by the Government. The High Court also quashed
the order dated February 26, 1966 whereby a prospecting licence
was granted to the appellant and directed the Government of Goa
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1982] I S.C.R.
A
to treat the applications of respondent I dated September 4 and
September 17, 1959 as still subsisting and to dispose them of in
accordance with the findings and observations contained in the
judgment. The correctness of the High Court's judgment is questioned in these appeals.
B
c
D
F
G
H
The main question which arises for consideration in these
appeals is whether, prior to the annexation of Goa by the Government of India, respondent I had acquired the right to obtain a
mining lease from the Portuguese Government and, if so, whether
after the annexation of Goa, the Government of India recognised
that right and is therefore bound to grant a mining lease to respondent I in terms of the applications maie by him in that behalf to
the Portuguese Government.
The question of recognition of respondent 1 's right by the Government of India will, of course,
depend initially upon whether, as a matter of fact, he had acquired
the right to obtain a mining lease from the Portuguese Government,
which in turn will depend upon the provisions of the Portuguese
mining laws. The question as to whether the Govt. of India is
bound to grant a mining lease to respondent 1 will depend npon
the effect of the laws passed by the Indian legislatnre after the
annexation of Goa, in the matter of continuance of laws which
were in force in Portuguese Goa and in the matter of protection
of the rights arising under those laws.
It, therefore, becomes
necessary to notice the relevant provisions of The Goa, Daman and
Diu (Administration) Act, I of 1962, and of the Goa, Daman And
Diu (Laws) Regulation, 12 of 1962, to which we w!ll refer respectively as "The Administration Act" and "The Regulation".
The Administration Act replaced Ordinance No. 2 of 1962,
which had come into force on March 5, 1962. The Administration
Act, though passed on March 27, 1962, was given retrospective
effect from the date of the Ordinance, namely, March 5, 1962.
The Administration Act makes provisions relating to appointment
of officers, continuance of existing laws until amended or repealed,
extension of enactments in force to Goa, Daman and Diu and for
allied matters. Section 2(b) of the Administration Act provides
that "appointed day" means the 20th of December 1961. That is
the date on which the territories comprised in Goa, Daman and
Diu under the Portuguese rule were annexed by the Government of
I
I
I
•
l
...
I
'
\
\
v. s. GOSALJA V. G. N. AGRAWAL (Chandrachud, c. J.)
403
India by conquest. Section 5(1) of the Administration Act reads
thus :
A
"Continuance of existing laws and their adaptation,-
(!) All laws in force immediately before the appointed day
in Goa, Daman and Din or any part thereof shall continue
to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a
B
competent Legislature or other competent authority."
The object of passing the Regulation was to extend certain
laws to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.
Section 2(a)
of the Regulation defines the "Act" to mean an act or the Ordinance specified in the Schedule to the Regulation. Section 3(1) of
the Regulation provides that the acts, as they are generally in force
in the territories to which they extend, shall extend to Goa, Daman
and Diu, subject to the modifications, if any, specified in-the Schedule.
Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that the provisions of the
acts referred in sub-section (I) shall come into force in Goa, Daman
and Diu on such date as the Lieutenant-Governor may, by notification, appoint. Section 4 of the Regulation, which bears directly
on the point at issue, reads thus :
"4. Repeal and saving-(1) Any law in force in Goa,
Daman and Diu or any area thereof corresponding to any
Act referred to in section 3 or any part thereof shall stand
repealed as from the coming into force of such Act or
part in Goa, Daman and Diu or such area, as the case
may be.
(2)
Nothing in sub-section (J) shall affectc
D
E
~
F
(a) the previous operation of any Jaw so repealed or
anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurred under any Jaw so repealed; or
(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in
respect of any offence committed against any Jaw so
repealed; or
G
(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in
H
respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability,
penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1982] I S.C.R.
any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy
may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such
penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed
as if this Regulation had not been made :
Provided that any thing done or any action
taken
(including any appointment or delegation made, notification, instruction or direction issued, form, bye-Jaw or
scheme framed, certificate obtained, patent, permit or
licence granted, or registration effected) under any such
Jaw, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provision of the Act extended to Goa,
Daman and Diu and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or
any action taken under the said Act."
Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the appellant, contends
that there was an interregnum between December 20, 1961, when
the Government of India annexed Goa, and March 5, 1962 when
the Administration Act was brought into force, as a result of
which, Jaws which were in force in Portuguese Goa immediately
before the annexation of Goa cease to apply to that territory with
effect from December 20, 1961 until March 5, 1962. It is urged by
counsel that by reason of section 5( l) of the Administration Act,
it is only with effect from March 5, 1962 that such laws continued
in force in the annexed territory. Since respondent I had made
his applications for mining leases or mining concessions under the
Portuguese Jaw and since that law itself c:ased to apply to the
conquered territory with effect from the date of conquest, the
applications lapsed on that date. Respondent l, not having made
any application after March 5, 1962 under the Portuguese mining
Jaws, forfeited his right to ask for mining leases on the basis of
those laws.
According to Shri Kacker, not only did the applications made by respondent 1 prior to the annexation of Goa cease
to have existence on December 20, 1961, but the Manifests of Title
which were granted to respondent I under the previous
mining
Jaws, which might have formed the basis for applying for mineral
concessions under the same laws, also came to a termination.
This, according to connsel, was much more so with effect from
October l, 1963, on which date the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concessions
Rules, 1960 were extended to Goa. In regard to the nature of the
right which respondent I claimed under the Portuguese Jaw, it is
I
).
I
-
j
-
-
v. s. GOSALIA v. G. N. AGRAWAL (Chandrachud, c. J.)
405
argued by Shri Kacker that the "Titles of Manifest" obtained by
A
respondent I under those laws conferred upon him no vested right
too btain the mineral concessions or mining leases. They only
enabled him to apply for concessions, since the Title of Manifest
under the Portuguese law was no more than what a prospecting
licence is under the Indian law of mining.
The argument of Shri G. L. Sanghi in answer to the points
made by Shri Kacker runs thus : By virtue of the four Titles of
Manifest which were duly transferred in his favour, respondent I
acquired the right to obtain mineral concessions in respect of the
four areas, prior to the annexation of Goa. He had presented the
necessary applications within the prescribed period and he had also
paid the necessary fees for obtaining mineral concessions. Since
respondent I was entitled to obtain mineral concessions or mining
leases from the Portuguese Government, he would be entitled to
obtain such concessions or leases from the Government of Goa
also. Though, on the extension of the Act and the Rules to Goa
with effect from October 1, 1963, the Portuguese mining laws stood
repealed by reason of section 4(1) of the Regulation, the previous
operation of the Portuguese mining laws so repealed was saved by
reason of section 4(2) of the Regulation.
Sub-section (2) also saved
anything duly done or suffered under the Portuguese laws, as also
the right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or
incurred under those laws.
Not only that, but sub-section (2) also
preserved any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect
of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability, which could be
instituted, continued or enforced as if the Regulation had not been
passed. The applications filed by respondent I for the grant of
mining concessions were "legal proceedings" within the meaning
of section 4(2) of the Regulation. Since those proceedings were
instituted in accordance with the Portuguese mining laws on the
basis of the right possessed by respondent 1 to obtain mining
concessions, he was entitled to continue the proceedings as if the
Regulations had not been passed, that is to say, as if the Portuguese
mining laws continued to be in force in the conquered territory
of Goa.
Before considering the merits of the respective contentions
bearing on the effect of the provisions of the Administration Act
c
0
E
F
G
and the Regulation, it is necessary to reiterate a well-settled legal
ff
position that when a new territory is acquired in any manner-be
it by conquest, annexation or cession following upon a treaty--tbe
A
B
c
D
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1982] I S.C.R.
new "sovereign" is not bound by the rights which the residents of
the conquered territory bad against their sovereign or by the
obligations of the old sovereign towards his subjects. The rights
of the residents of a territory against their state or sovereign come
to an end with the conquest, annexation or cession of that territory
and do not pass on to the new environment. The inhabitants of
the acquired territory bring with them no rights which they can
enforce against the new state of which they become inhabitants.
The new state is not required, by any positive assertion or declaration, to repudiate its obligation by disowning such rights
The
new state may recognise the old rights by re-granting them which,
in the majority of cases, would be a matter of contract or of executive action; or, alternatively, the recognition of old rights may
be made by an appropriate statutory provision whereby rights
which were in force immediately before an appointed date are
saved. Whether the new state has accepted new obligations by
recognising old rights, is a question of fact depending upon whether
one or the other course has been adopted by it.