[Cites 66, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ashok George vs The Secretary To Government on 19 December, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36843 OF 2015
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHOK GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.C.J.VARKEY,ALAKKATHIL HOUSE,
PERUVANNAMUZHI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA
2 KURIAKOSE JOSE
S/O.JOHN JOSEPH,PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBANODA P.O,
PERUVANNAMUZHI(VIA),KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
KESAVADASAPUPRAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 004.
3 THE GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINIPNG AND GEOLOGY,DISTRICT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, KLOZHIKODE,PIN 673 020.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:2:-
BY ADV SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).254/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 254 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUNBOKKIL, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O. ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:4:-
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14425 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SIDDIQUE AREEKKAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, AREEKKAN HOUSE , EDAKKA PARAMBU,
KANNAMANGALA. P. O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
OFFICE,MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.S.KANNAN
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:6:-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15037 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUMBOKKIL, KARMAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:8:-
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:9:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15986 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
EASSA E.K.
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O ALI MOITHEEN KUTTY , EDATHOLA,KOTTASSERRY VEEDU,
NEDUMBOKKIL, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI., PIN - 676121
2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:10:-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:11:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11397 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SAINUL ABDEEN
AGED 50 YEARS
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SAIDU MOHAMMED RAWTHER, KAMBRATH
CHALLA, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD- 678 507
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SRI.AMAL KASHA
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES (A)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD- 678 001
3 VILLAE OFFICER
MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE-1, PALAKKAD- 678 507
4 GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD- 678 001
BY ADVS. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASWIN
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:12:-
SETHUMADHAVAN
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:13:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38526 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
TUTU JOSE
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O JOSE, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
ALAKODE P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670571
BY ADVS.
SRI.KRISHNA DAS
SMT.M.M.GRACY
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND
GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:14:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10670 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUJIT,
AGED 39 YEARS
PATHIYIL HOUSE, THOTTSSERIYARA, KANNAMANGALAM POST,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676305
BY ADV SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
MINING & GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS. SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:15:-
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:16:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43302 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL SAMAD,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K., EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI,
KOTTASSERI PURAYA, KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PINCODE-, PIN - 676304
2 ABDUL NAZAR EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K., KOTTASSERI, KOTTASSERI PURAYA,
KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
676304
3 ABDUL HAMEED
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN KUTTY E.K. , EDATHOLA KOTTASSERI,
KOTTASSERI PURAYA, KANNAMANGALAM (PO), VENGARA,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676304
4 MARIYUMMA
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, MOOCHIKKADAN PAIKKATT HOUSE,
KOTTAPARAMBU, PARAPPUR, IRINGALLUR, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.MKS.MENON
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:17:-
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ,
MINING & GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, PIN - 676121
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
KERALA, PIN - 676306
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
SRI.S.KANNAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).36843/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
-:18:-
C.R
J U D G M E N T
[WP(C) Nos.36843/2015, 254/2024, 14425/2023, 15037/2023,
15986/2023, 11397/2017, 38526/2023, 10670/2024, 43302/2024]
Prelude
Kerala State, often referred to as "God's Own Country," is rich
in various mineral resources, including minor minerals. The State
has a wide range of mineral deposits, making it a significant
contributor to India's mineral wealth. Besides the former Malabar
province, the rights over mineral wealth beneath the land across
Kerala are owned by the State and are governed by the Travancore
Proclamation, 1881, and the Cochin Proclamation, 1905,
respectively. The question whether minerals lying beneath the soil
in the former Malabar province belong to the State or the
landowners with Jenm rights was considered by the Full Bench of
the Kerala High Court on reference in Thressiamma Jacob v.
Department of Mining and Geology1. The reference was answered
(AIR 2000 Ker 300)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
by holding that the minerals beneath the soil belong to the State,
and royalty must be paid to the Government for quarrying leases.
In appeal, the Supreme Court 2 reversed the Kerala High Court's
judgment and declared that the ownership of the subsoil/mineral
wealth of the land, comprised in the former Malabar province, rests
with the respective owners/jenmis and not with the State.
However, the Supreme Court refused to express its opinion
regarding the liability of the property owners to pay royalty to the
State, as that issue had been referred to a Larger Bench in Mineral
Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India 3 . The
Court's declaration was based on the finding that there was no
legislation that vests mineral rights or subsoil rights in the State,
and the ownership of such subsoil or mineral wealth would
normally follow the ownership of the land. It paved the way for the
enactment of the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 (for
short, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021), which vests all rights in the
minerals within the soil and subsoil of all lands of any ownership
and tenure in the Government. During the pendency of these writ
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725]
(2011) 4 SCC 450
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
petitions, the nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 4 declared
that royalty is not a tax and that it is the private owner who is
entitled to collect royalty when he is the owner. The petitioners in
all the writ petitions are aggrieved by the demand of royalty and
cost of the minerals made by the State towards the extraction of
minor minerals from their respective properties under the
provisions of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation
Act, 1957 (for short, MMDR Act, 1957) and Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, KMMC Rules, 2015)
Brief Facts and Rival Contentions
2. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 14425/23, 15037/23,
10670/24, and 43302/24 operated quarries on properties owned
by them, located in the former Malabar province. Following the
enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, they received a
demand notice for the payment of royalty, mineral costs, and fine,
alleging that they had unlawfully quarried granite from their
properties. According to the petitioners, the authority of the State
Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
to collect the royalty depends on the vesting of minerals in the
State. They challenge the constitutional validity of the Minerals
Vesting Act, 2021, which vests ownership of the subsoil and
mineral wealth of the land within the former Malabar province in
the State, primarily on the ground that it violates Articles 300A and
14 of the Constitution of India, since it does not compensate
mineral owners upon vesting these rights in the State. They
contend that if the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is found to be
unconstitutional, they are not liable to pay royalty for minerals
extracted from their own land, referring to the Supreme Court's
declaration in Thressiamma Jacob 5 that minerals in the Malabar
area do not belong to the State, but to the surface owner.
Furthermore, they contend that neither the MMDR Act, 1957, nor
the KMMC Rules, 2015, contain provisions requiring permission for
self-extraction of minerals from one's own land; therefore, the
respondent State cannot claim the cost of the extracted minerals
or fine on the ground that the extraction was unauthorised or
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
illegal.
3. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 38526/2023 developed his
land situated in the former Malabar province by excavating and
removing earth to establish a petroleum retail outlet. The second
respondent/Geologist issued Ext. P11 Assessment Order under the
provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, and the KMMC Rules, 2015,
stating that the petitioner had unlawfully and without authorisation
extracted granites from his property and directing him to pay the
value of the minerals, royalty, and fine. According to the petitioner,
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which served as the basis for Ext.
P11 is unconstitutional. He disputes the constitutional validity of
that Act on the ground that it not only lacks provisions to
compensate property owners when mineral rights vest with the
State but also exceeds the legislative competence of the State.
Additionally, it is alleged that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is
repugnant to the central legislation, such as the MMDR Act and the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013).
The petitioner further asserts that development activities
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
undertaken on his own land should not be classified as mining
operations subject to royalties and other charges under the KMMC
Rules, 2015. He also contends that as the land is located in the
former Malabar province, the collection of royalty cannot be
justified, even if the activity were of a commercial nature, in
accordance with the legal pronouncements by the Supreme Court
in Thressiamma Jacob6.
4. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 15037/23, independent of
the challenge to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 has filed two
additional writ petitions - WP(C) Nos.15986/23 and 254/24. Apart
from the quarry, he operated a crusher unit on another property
that belonged to him. In WP(C) No. 15986/23, he challenges the
action of respondents 1 and 2 (Geologist and Director of Mining
and Geology) in not permitting him to remove and sell the granite
metals crushed in his crusher, despite having paid royalty twice:
once from the supplier of the granite under Rule 7 of KMMC Rules,
2015, and again from himself as the owner of the crusher unit
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. He asserts that he paid
royalty under Rule 89 to avoid harassment, even though he
believed that the collection was illegal. Incidentally, the petitioner
challenges the constitutional validity of Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules,
2015, claiming it violates Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and exceeds the delegated legislative
authority under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. He also seeks
the recovery of the royalty collected under Rule 89 of the KMMC
Rules, 2015. In WP(C) No. 254/24, the petitioner challenges the
action of the Department of Mining and Geology/respondents in
refusing to issue the E-Pass under Rule 26(6) of the Kerala
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules,
2015 (for short, the Transportation Rules, 2015), enabling him to
remove the granite materials stored in his crusher unit, despite the
department having collected licence fee from him and issued a
dealer licence.
5. The challenge in WP(C) Nos. 36843/15 and 11397/17
concerns the demand for royalty and the cost of minerals made by
the State before the enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
in relation to the extraction of minor minerals from their respective
properties situated in the former Malabar province under the
provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and KMMC Rules, 2015.
6. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 36843/15 operated a
granite quarry in the properties owned by them, located in the
former Malabar province. The 3rd respondent/Geologist issued Exts.
P2 and P3 demand notices to the petitioners for the payment of
royalty and mineral costs, alleging that they had unlawfully
quarried granite from their properties. According to the petitioners,
the right to claim royalty vests with the owner, and based on the
Supreme Court's declaration in Thressiamma Jacob7 that minerals
in the Malabar area belong to the surface owner, they are owners
of the minerals and therefore the State cannot demand royalty
from them. Besides challenging Exts.P2 and P3 on that ground, the
petitioners seek to strike down Rules 11 and 49 of the KMMC Rules,
2015, to the extent that they provide for payment of royalty for
granites quarried from private properties.
7. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 11397/17 owns a brick
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
manufacturing unit. He extracted earth from his property to
manufacture bricks. The 4th respondent/Geologist issued Ext. P5
order under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, and the KMMC
Rules, 2015, stating that the petitioner had conducted illegal
quarrying of clay from his property without obtaining any valid
permit from the competent authority and directing him to pay the
royalty and the cost of the bricks manufactured using the extracted
clay. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5 order mainly on the ground
that he, being an owner of land in the Malabar area, is not required
to take any permit or pay royalty in connection with the mining
activities on the land. He seeks the benefit of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob8. According to him, there is
no provision in KMMC Rules, 2015, which enjoins owners of land in
the Malabar area, who are also owners of subsoil/mineral rights, to
apply for and obtain permits, licences, or leases to carry out
quarrying activities on their own land; hence, he asserts that he
has the absolute right to conduct quarrying operations on his land
without any permit, licence, or lease from any authority. He also
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
contends that he was not heard before the passing of Ext. P5 order,
and thus it violates the principles of natural justice.
8. The core points of the State's contentions in its counter-
affidavit are as follows:
• Though the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob9 held that
ownership of the mineral wealth of the land comprised in
erstwhile Malabar province vests with the respective owners
and not on the State, by the enactment of Minerals Vesting
Act, 2021, all rights in the minerals, the soil and subsoil of all
lands of whatsoever ownership or tenure in the erstwhile
Malabar province stands vested in and shall be subject to the
control of Government w.e.f. 30/12/2019.
• MMDR Act, 1957, is a regulatory measure. Despite the
ownership of the subsoil/mineral being conferred on the
owner of the property, it does not detract from the
requirement for a lease/licence/permit to extract and
transport such minor mineral/ordinary earth therefrom. Even
if the extraction of the minor minerals is from the land owned
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
by private persons, where minerals vest with them, the
owner of the land has to comply with the statutory
preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957,
and the Rules made thereunder.
• Before the extraction of the mines and minerals from their
respective properties, the petitioners did not obtain any
statutory permissions/licences/clearances from the
competent authorities concerned. Therefore, the extraction
was illegal and violates the MMDR Act, 1957 and the KMMC
Rules, 2015.
• Since the petitioners raised minerals from the subject
properties without any statutory permissions or without any
lawful authority, the State has every power to recover from
them the minerals so raised or, where such minerals have
already been disposed of, the price thereof, fine and royalty.
• Any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral
concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining, and in
the case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear the
consequence of the illegality and compensate 100% of the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
price of unlawfully mined mineral. Since the petitioners did
not procure any statutory clearances/permissions/licences or
approved mining plan, the extraction carried out in their
respective properties has to be treated as illicit and illegal.
So much so, over and above the statutory prescriptions, the
petitioners have to pay 100% of the value of the minerals
extracted therefrom.
• Even if minor mineral is extracted from one's own land, he is
obliged to obtain a quarrying permit on the same conditions
as in Chapter II of the KMMC Rules, 2015 and to submit an
attested copy of the same to the competent authority, failing
which, extraction of minerals as is done in the case of the
petitioners will fall within the ambit of illegal extraction,
leading to penal consequences.
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 has been enacted in
consonance with the policy of the State, taking cue of Article
31(b) of the Constitution of India, towards securing that
ownership and control of mineral resources of the community
are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. So
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
much so, it does not require payment of compensation or
indemnification to the owner of the property. Therefore, it can
never be said that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is violative
of Articles 300 A and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• By virtue of the impugned Act, the subsoil rights/mineral
rights over the subject property alone vest with the State,
and there is no expropriation of property as such. No
acquisition of property is also involved. In that view of the
matter as well, there is no need to incorporate a provision in
the Act for payment of compensation to the owners of the
properties whose subsoil rights/mineral wealth are proposed
to be vested in the Government by virtue of the Act.
• While issuing Travancore and Cochin Proclamations, no
compensation was paid for the vesting of minerals in the
State. Having not granted compensation to the owners of the
properties comprised in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin
provinces, no compensation can be granted to the owners of
the properties comprised in the erstwhile Malabar province
alone, since it will again lead to arbitrary discrimination.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
• The State Government is a delegate of the Central
Government insofar as minor minerals are concerned. The
rule-making power pertaining to minor minerals, including
those meant for regulating the mineral concessions and for
purposes connected therewith, exclusively falls within the
realm of the State Government.
• By virtue of Entries 18 and 23 of the List II, viz. the State list
of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, coupled with Entry 42
of List III, viz. the Concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution, the State is legally entitled to promulgate the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
• In view of the notwithstanding clause contained in the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, it will override the provisions of
the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
being a later one, and was brought into force to deal with
specific circumstances as demonstrated therein, to vest the
subsoil right in the State, will have precedence over the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
• Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 was preceded by the Kerala
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance of 2019 (Ordinance
43/2019). The said ordinance was in force from 30/12/2019.
It was in the said circumstances, Minerals Vesting Act, 2021
was given retrospective effect w.e.f. 30/12/2019. Hence,
granting retrospective effect to the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 is valid and legal.
• The State Government has the right to levy royalty on the
production and disposal of minor minerals, irrespective of the
ownership of the land. The ownership of the minor mineral is
therefore immaterial.
• The ownership of the subsoil rights within the Malabar area
would not make any difference insofar as the authority of the
State to collect royalty is concerned. The holders of the land
in the Malabar area are also liable to obtain permission from
the statutory authority and pay royalty/rent, etc, before
conducting any quarrying operations on their land. When
illegal mining/quarrying is conducted, the Government may
recover the mineral or its value under Section 25(1) of the
MMDR Act.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
• A quarrying permit or lease, as the case may be, shall only
be granted on payment of royalty as the competent authority
may fix based on the scheduled rates and also on payment
of surface rent, debt rent and cess, as the case may be.
Payment of royalty is a precondition for the issuance of
mineral transit passes and movement permits.
• KMMC Rules, 2015 has been amended as per GO(P)
No.38/2023/ID dated 31/3/2023, published in the
extraordinary Gazette No.1231 dated 31/3/2023. Rule 89 of
KMMC Rules, 2015 has been deleted therefrom w.e.f.
01/04/2023. WP(C) No. 15986/2023 has been filed only on
16/5/2023. The petitioner seeks to assail the vires of the
provision, which is no more in existence.
• Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, is neither arbitrary nor
unconstitutional, as contended by the petitioners.
Amendment carried out to the KMMC Rules, 2015, as per the
GO dated 31/3/2023, is invoking the power conferred on the
State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, and is well
within the delegated legislative power of the State.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
• There is no illegality or irregularity in issuing demand notices
to the petitioners to pay the cost of the illegally extracted
minerals, fine and royalty.
Points for Determination
9. On consideration of the rival contentions, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Is the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, violative of
Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution since it does
not provide compensation to the owners of minerals
while vesting the same in the State?
(ii) Does the State Government have legal
competence to enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021?
(iii) Is the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, repugnant to
the MMDR Act, 1957 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
(iv) Is the granting of retrospective effect to the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 legal
and proper?
(v) Can the State claim royalty before the appointed
day under the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, even if the
Act is found to be constitutional in view of the law
declared in Thressiamma Jacob10 and Section 17A(3)
of the MMDR Act?
(vi) Whether the State Government has the right to
levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor
minerals irrespective of its ownership?
(vii) Is the holder of the land in the Malabar area
liable to obtain a permit/licence from statutory
authorities to carry out quarrying activities in their
own land and pay royalty?
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
(viii) Is Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 beyond the
delegated legislative power of the State under
Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957?
(ix) Does Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 violate
Article 19(1)(g) r/w 14 of the Constitution?
10. I have heard Sri.MKS. Menon and Sri.George
Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.T.B.Hood and Sri.Shashank Devan, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri.S.Kannan, the learned Senior Government Pleader
and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, the learned Special Government
Pleader.
Analysis and Findings
Point (i)
11. As already stated, the Supreme Court in Thressiamma
Jacob11 held that ownership of the subsoil/mineral wealth of land
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
in the erstwhile Malabar area vests with the respective landowners
and not with the State, in the absence of any enactment that vests
the mineral wealth or subsoil rights in the State. This was in
contrast with laws in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas,
where subsoil rights were vested with the State through the
Travancore Proclamation of 1881 and the Cochin Proclamation of
1905, respectively. The State Government felt that subsoil rights in
lands in the erstwhile Malabar area should be brought on par with
rights in other parts of the State, especially in the erstwhile
Travancore and Cochin areas. Therefore, the Kerala Minerals
(Vesting of Rights) Ordinance of 2019 (Ordinance 43 of 2019) was
promulgated, followed by its re-promulgation through Ordinance 4
of 2020, Ordinance 12 of 2020, Ordinance 23 of 2020, Ordinance
64 of 2020, Ordinance 11 of 2021, Ordinance 91 of 2021, and
Ordinance 124 of 2021, vesting mineral rights in the soil and
subsoil of land in the State, excluding land under the Travancore
and Cochin proclamations. Ordinance 124 of 2021 was replaced by
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, which came into force
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
retrospectively from 30/12/2019, the date of Ordinance 43 of 2019.
The Act does not provide any compensation to landowners when
vesting subsoil rights with the State. The petitioners in WP(C)
Nos.14425/23, 15037/23, 38526/23, 10670/24, and 43302/24
assail the vires of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 and seek a
declaration that the said Act, being an enactment that offers no
compensation to owners of the minerals upon vesting rights in the
State, violates Article 300A and Article 14 of the Constitution and
is thus unconstitutional.
12. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS. Menon submitted
that minerals are property attracting Article 300A of the
Constitution, and when the minerals are vested in the State, it
effectively takes away a portion of the property itself. The twin
requirements of public purpose and compensation, although
seemingly omitted from Article 300A, are implied in the said Article
and List III Entry 42, and when a person is deprived of his property,
the Constitutional Court can always examine the validity of the
statute on those grounds. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, being an enactment
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
that provides no compensation, attracts the vice of illegal
deprivation of property under Article 300A of the Constitution and
is therefore liable to be struck down. It was also argued that the
impugned Act is not a statute relating to agrarian reforms and,
therefore, does not enjoy the protection of Article 31A. Reliance
was placed on Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others 12,
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Another13 and K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka14 in
support of his submissions.
13. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam
supported the arguments of Sri. MKS Menon and submitted that
the concept of eminent domain be read into Article 300 A, and the
impugned Act is unconstitutional for not providing compensation
to owners of the minerals while vesting the same with the State.
14. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.
(2011) 8 SCC 708
1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596
(2011) 9 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
S. Kannan, appearing for the State, defended the constitutional
validity of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 and refuted the
submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
It is submitted that the State, as the trustee of the natural
resources under the public trust doctrine, has a legal duty to
protect them, which are meant for public use. The Act impugned
has been enacted in consonance with the policy of the State with
an objective to ensure that the resources of the community are
evenly distributed at its best, to sub-serve the common good of
the public at large and for the protection of the environment.
Therefore, it does not require payment of just compensation or
indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated. It is the
very negation of effectuating the public purpose. The Act is not
ultra vires to Article 300A of the Constitution. It is further submitted
that the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, claim
compensation for the deprivation of their properties. It is also
submitted that by virtue of the Act, only subsoil rights/mineral
wealth are vested in the State, and no acquisition or expropriation
of property as such is involved. Therefore, there is no necessity to
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
pay compensation. The Act has been envisaged to bring uniformity
in the State of Kerala insofar as the rights over the subsoil and
mineral wealth are concerned. No compensation was granted to
the owners of the property comprised in the erstwhile Travancore
and Cochin areas while taking over their respective rights over the
subsoil/mineral wealth. Having not granted compensation to the
owners of the properties comprised in the erstwhile Travancore and
Cochin areas, no compensation can be granted to the owners of
the properties comprised in the erstwhile Malabar area alone, since
it will lead to arbitrary discrimination. Reliance was placed on
Jilubhai 15 , K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd 16 , Planters Forum v. State of
Kerala17, Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt.
Ltd.18, Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners v. V.Gopinath
and Others 19 and Property Owners' Association v. State of
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
2015 (2) KLT 783
2024 SCC OnLine SC 188
2023 SCC OnLine SC 137
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Maharashtra .
15. The right to property was included in the Constitution
as a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(f) and Art.31 of the
Constitution. However, by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act,
1978, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were removed in their entirety
from the Chapter on fundamental rights, Part III. It was through the
same amendment that Article 300A was inserted into the
Constitution, which reads as follows:
"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority
of law: No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law."
16. Although no longer in the nature of a fundamental right,
the provision has been characterised as a constitutional and
human right21. Deprivation of property can be without the consent
2024 KLT OnLine 2648 (SC)
Chandigarh Housing Board v. Major General Devinder Singh (Retd.), (2007) 9 SCC 67, Lachhman Dass v.
Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
of the owner and against his will, but the mandate of the
Constitution is that it can be done only by authority of law. However,
Article 300A cannot be construed as a declaration of the right of
the State to deprive any person of his property, but has to be
understood as a limitation on the power of the State to take away
private property. Deprivation of property without the sanction of
law has no constitutional support. No law, no deprivation is the
principle of Article 300A.
17. Deprivation of property, by any mode, is comprehended
in this provision. Deprivation may be acquisition; deprivation may
also occur in ways other than through acquisition. An acquisition is
a compulsory vesting of the property of a person with the State. It
is traceable undoubtedly to the power of eminent domain assured
to every sovereign. The right of eminent domain is the right of the
sovereign State, through its regular agencies, to reassert, either
temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the
soil of the State, including private property without its owner's
consent on account of public exigency and for the public good.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property
remaining in the Government, or in the aggregate body of the
people in their sovereign capacity. It gives the right to resume
possession of the property in the manner directed by the
Constitution and the laws of the State, whenever the public interest
requires it. The concept of public use has been inextricably related
to an appropriate exercise of power and is considered essential in
any statement of its meaning. Payment of compensation, though
not an essential ingredient of the connotation of the term, is an
essential element of the valid exercise of such power. Courts have
defined "eminent domain" as the power of the sovereign to take
property for public use without the owner's consent upon making
just compensation 22 . The question of whether the concept of
eminent domain and its key components should be read into Article
300A came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in K. T.
Plantation 23 . It was held that though the principles of eminent
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596, State of
Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
domain, as such, were not seen incorporated in Article 300A, they
can be inferred in that Article. However, it was made clear that,
after the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional
obligation to pay compensation to a person deprived of their
property primarily depends on the terms of the statute and
legislative policy.
18. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that
by virtue of the impugned Act, the subsoil rights/ mineral rights
over the subject property alone vest with the State, and there is no
deprivation of property as such to attract Article 300A. The
question then is, what is the meaning of the word 'property' and
'deprived' used in Article 300A?
19. The definition of the term 'immovable property' given
in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is in the negative
and is not exhaustive. Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, 1908
defines immovable property as "immovable property" includes
land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries,
fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things
attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
is attached to the earth, but not standing timber, growing crops or
grass. According to the definition given in Section 3(26) of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 "immovable property" shall include land,
benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or
permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus,
every interest in the land or a benefit arising out of land, will be
'immovable property'. The question whether minerals are property
under Article 300A came up for consideration before the Supreme
Court in Jilubhai24 and was answered in the affirmative. It was held
in paragraph 42, thus:
"42. Property in the legal sense means an aggregate of rights
that are guaranteed and protected by law. it extends to every
species of valuable right and interest, more particularly,
ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose
of the thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to
exclude everyone else from interfering with it. The dominion or
indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully
exercise over particular things or subjects is called property.
The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a
thing is property in legal parameters. Therefore, the word
'property ' connotes everything which is subject of ownership,
corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
invisible, real or personal; everything that has an
exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate
or status. Property, therefore, within the constitutional
protection, denotes a group of rights inhering citizen's relation
to a physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of
it in accordance with law. In Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law
Lexicon, Reprint Ed. 1987 at p. 1031, it is stated that the
property is the most comprehensive of all terms which can be
used, inasmuch as it is indicative and descriptive of every
possible interest which the party can have. The term property
has a most extensive signification, and, according to its legal
definition, consists in free use, enjoyment, and disposition by
a person of all his acquisitions, without any control or
diminution, save only by the laws of the land, in Dwarkadas
Srinivas's case, this court gave extended meaning to the word
property. Mines, minerals and quarries are property attracting
Article 300A.
(emphasis supplied).
Recently, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority
of India 25 , it was reiterated by the Supreme Court that sub-soil
minerals form part of the land.
20. Interpreting the word 'deprived' in clause (1) of Article
31, the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal
(2024 ) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Bose26 held that withholding the property from the possession and
enjoyment of its owner or materially reducing its value would
amount to 'deprivation' within the meaning of Article 31(1). It was
further held that Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 dealt with the
topic of 'eminent domain', the expressions 'taken possession of' or
'acquired' occurring in Clause (2) have the same meaning as the
word 'deprived' used in Clause (1). In other words, both the clauses
are concerned with deprivation of the property; taken possession
of or acquired, used in Clause (2), refers to the deprivation of the
property in Clause (1). Taking possession or acquisition should be
in the connotation of the acquisition or requisition of the property
for a public purpose. Deprivation specifically referable to
acquisition or requisition and not for any and every kind of
deprivation. In Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. Sholapur
Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., 27 it was similarly held that the
words 'taken possession of' or 'acquired' in Art. 31(2) has to be
read along with the word 'deprived' in clause (1). Taking possession
or acquisition amounts to deprivation within the meaning of clause
AIR 1954 SC 92
(1954) SCR 674
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
(1). Deprivation of property is by acquisition or requisition, or
taking possession for a public purpose.
21. Article 300A was, in fact, a restoration of Article 31(1).
Therefore, the interpretation given to the term 'deprived' found in
Article 31(1) could be extended to the term 'deprived' found in
Article 300 A as well. Interpreting the word 'deprivation' in Article
300 A, it was held in Jilubhai28 that acquisition of mines, minerals
and quarries is deprivation under Article 300A. Minerals, being
benefits arising out of land, are part of the land until the same is
removed through some process. When a part of the land, namely,
minerals, is vested, in effect, the State is taking away part of the
land, i.e., mineral deposit, and as a result, the owner is in effect
deprived of his part of the land itself, attracting Article 300 A.
22. The main argument of the petitioners is that Article
300A and the statute framed thereunder must fulfill two
requirements: a public purpose and adequate compensation. It is
well established that public purpose is a prerequisite for invoking
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Article 300A 29 . The key issue then is whether payment of
compensation is mandatory.
23. The scope of Article 300A with respect to the
requirement to pay compensation has been explained in Jilubhai30
where the Supreme Court examined whether Section 69-A,
introduced by the Gujarat Amendment Act 8 of 1982 to the
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 --which deals with vesting
mines, minerals, and quarries in lands held by individuals,
including Girasdars and Barkhalidars--violates Article 300A of the
Constitution due to the absence of compensation. The Court held
that when the State exercises the power of eminent domain under
Article 300A and acquires, requisitions, or takes possession of a
citizen's property to give effect to any of the directive principles in
Part IV of the Constitution, it is not required to pay just
compensation or indemnification to the owner of the expropriated
property.
24. In Rajiv Sarin31, as a result of an amendment effected to
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596
Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2011) 8 SCC 708
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1960, the rights of every intermediary in respect of
forest land situated in specified areas came to be vested with the
State Government. The amendment and notice came to be
challenged. The Supreme Court, speaking through a Constitution
Bench, drew the distinction between 'No compensation' and 'Nil
compensation', and held that a law seeking to acquire private
property for a public purpose cannot say that 'no compensation'
would be paid. The Court proceeded to find that it was a case of
'no compensation' at all, and therefore, it attracted the vice of
illegal deprivation of property and gave relief on the said basis.
This is after finding that the property in question was a productive
asset.
25. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.T.
Plantation32 had elaborately considered Article 300A and payment
of compensation. After noticing the entire constitutional history of
right to property, it was held that though payment of compensation
K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
amount is a constitutional requirement under Article 30(1-A) and
under the second proviso to Article 31-A(1), unlike Article 300-A,
after the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional
obligation to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his
property primarily depends upon the terms of the statute and the
legislative policy. True, in paragraph 192, it was held that a law
providing for the acquisition of private property for a public
purpose cannot say that no compensation could be paid. However,
in paragraph 189, it was made clear that the requirement of public
purpose, for deprivation of a person of his property under Article
300-A, is a precondition, but no compensation or nil compensation
or its illusiveness has to be justified by the State on judicially
justiciable standards. Measures designed to achieve greater social
justice may call for lesser compensation, and such a limitation by
itself will not make legislation invalid or unconstitutional or
confiscatory. In other words, the right to claim compensation or the
obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300A,
can be inferred in that article, and it is for the State to justify its
stand on justifiable grounds, which may depend upon the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
legislative policy, object and purpose of the statute and a host of
other factors. In each case, courts will have to examine the scheme
of the impugned Act, its object, purpose, as also the question
whether payment of nil compensation or nominal compensation
would make the impugned law unjust, unfair or unreasonable in
terms of other provisions of the Constitution as indicated above.
26. In Planters Forum33, the provisions of Section 3 of the
Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile
Lands) Act, 2003, were challenged before the Division Bench of this
Court on the ground, among other things, as violative of Article
300A of the Constitution, as no provisions are made for the
payment of compensation in respect of lands vesting with the
Government under Section 3. After referring to various case laws,
including Rajiv Sarin34 and K.T. Plantation35, it was held that the
right under Article 300A should be interpreted in accordance with
the particular legislation. Non-payment of compensation may, in
some cases, be held to be violative of Article 300A, and in some
Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783
Rajv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 708
K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
cases, it may not be that the right of compensation is a necessary
ingredient. Each case has to be looked into and decided in its own
setting.
27. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS. Menon submitted
that the State has no defence based on the protection under Article
31 A and 31 C of the Constitution, and since Jilubhai 36 was based
on Article 31 A protection and Planters Forum 37 was based on
Article 31 C protection, the dictum laid down therein cannot be
applied to these cases. I cannot subscribe to the said submission.
It is true that in Jilubhai 38 , it was found that the Act impugned
therein was protected by Article 31 A as it related to agrarian
reform and in Planters Forum39, it was found that the Act involved
therein was saved by Article 31 C as it was enacted to give effect
to the directive principles of state policy enshrined under Article
39 (b). Still, independent of the said findings, the validity of the
provisions challenged in the Acts was examined on the touchstone
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. (1) SC 596
Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. (1) SC 596
Planters Forum v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLT 783
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
of Article 300A in both the decisions and arrived at a finding that
the impugned statutes are not violative of Article 300A of the
Constitution due to the absence of compensation.
28. In Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners 40 also,
the Supreme Court, following K.T. Plantation 41 , reiterated that
though the payment of compensation is a constitutional
requirement under Article 30(1A) and under the second proviso to
Article 31A (1) unlike Article 300A, after the Forty-Fourth
Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional obligation to pay
compensation to a person deprived of his property is dependent
on the Statute.
29. Thus, the law is well settled that when the State
exercises the power of eminent domain under Article 300A and
acquires or otherwise takes possession of a citizen's property, the
payment of compensation is not mandatory in all cases. The
constitutional obligation of the State to pay compensation to a
person deprived of his property is dependent on the scheme, terms,
Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners v. V.Gopinath and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 137
K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
object and purpose of the statute and the legislative policy. Each
case has to be decided on its own merits. Now, let me examine
whether the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is saved from challenge
on the ground that it violates Article 300A by applying this test.
30. It is a trite law that natural resources are vested with
the State as a trustee, in view of the Public Trust Doctrine. The
Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain
resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great
importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly
unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said
resources, being a gift of nature, should be made freely available
to everyone irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins
upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment
of the general public rather than to permit their use for private
ownership or commercial purposes. The duty to preserve natural
resources in pristine purity has been highlighted in M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath42. After considering the opinion of various renowned
authors and decisions rendered by other countries as well on
(1997) 1 SCC 388
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
environment and ecology, the Supreme Court held that the public
has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their
natural characteristics, which concept is finding its way into the
law of the land. The Court accepted the applicability of the Public
Trust Doctrine and held that it was founded on the idea that certain
common properties, such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air
were held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. These natural resources have
a great importance to the people as a whole, so it would be wholly
unjustified to make them a subject to private ownership. It was
held that our legal system -- based on English common law --
includes the Public Trust Doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The
State is the trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature
meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the
beneficiary of these resources. The State as a trustee is under a
legal duty to protect these natural resources.
31. In State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others43,
it was held that minerals are natural resources. The Supreme Court
AIR 1981 SC 711
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
sounded a note of caution to all Governments in the following
words:
"6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute
a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered
away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation
owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and
conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible
way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the
nation ..............."
32. Thus, Public Trust Doctrine applies to minerals by
treating them as part of the nation's shared natural wealth that the
Government hold the same in trust for the public good and for
future generations.
33. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the reasons given
by the State Government in its counter-affidavit for enacting the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. A detailed counter-affidavit has been
filed by the State in WP(C) No. 14425/2023 which has been
adopted in almost all the writ petitions. It is specifically pleaded in
the counter affidavit that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, has been
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
promulgated in consonance with the policy of the State to ensure
that the material resources of the community are evenly
distributed at its best, to serve the common good of the public at
large.
34. The Constitution of India provided Directive Principles
vis-à-vis the fundamental rights to realise social and economic
democracy for the successful working of political democracy, in
which the State is bound to provide to every person in the society
equality of opportunity in economic arrangements. The
fundamental rights and the directive principles are the two wheels
of the chariot as an aid to make social and economic democracy a
truism44. The Directive Principles of the State policy lay down the
fundamental principles for the governance of the country, and
through those principles, the State is directed to secure that the
ownership and control of the material resources of the community
are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good and that
the operation of the economic system does not result in the
concentration of wealth and means of production to the common
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
detriment 45 . Material resources and operation of the economic
system shall be so organised as to establish the egalitarian social
order.
35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of
community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to
bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable
or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible
properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and
quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the
community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property
Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there
is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a
privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material
resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the
provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately
owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well-
being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp. 1 SC 596
Property Owners' Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 KLT OnLine 2648 (SC)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
illustrate, nonexhaustively, there may exist private ownership of
forests, ponds, fragile areas, wetlands and resource-bearing lands.
Similarly, resources like spectrum, airwaves, natural gas, mines
and minerals, which are scarce and finite, may sometimes be
within private control. Since the community has a vital interest in
the retention of the character of these resources, they fall within
the ambit of the expression "material resources of the community".
36. It is accordingly clear that the minor mineral resources
are natural resources that fall within the expression 'material
resources of the community' and the State, as trustees of such
resources, have a duty to take them over and manage scientifically
for the public good rather than to permit their use for private
ownership or commercial purposes. The impugned Minerals
Vesting Act, 2021, has been precisely enacted to achieve the said
object and therefore, is saved from challenge on the ground that it
violates Article 300A. The petitioners could not demonstrate how
their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 has been
violated in consequence of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. Hence,
I hold that Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is not violative of Articles
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
300A and 14 of the Constitution of India.
Point( ii)
37. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 38526/2023 has challenged
the legislative competence of the State legislature to enact the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George
Poonthottam argued that mineral development is a subject matter
under the exclusive domain of the Union under Section 2 of the
MMDR Act, 1957 and Entry 54 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution of India, 1950, and thus, the power to legislate on
minerals is vested with the Parliament. The State cannot take
control of minerals, whether it is major or minor, by vesting
through legislation and, therefore, the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
is ultra vires, submitted the learned Senior Counsel. I find no force
in the said submission.
38. By virtue of Entries 18 (land) and 23 (Regulation of
Mines and Mineral Development) of the List II, viz., the State List
of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State is legally
entitled to promulgate the Act of 2021. Entries 18 and 23 of List II
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution reads thus:
"18. Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures
including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection
of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land
improvement and agricultural loans; colonization."
"23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject
to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and
development under the control of the Union."
39. The expression 'land' in Entry 18 includes lands of every
description. In Jilubhai48, it was held that the land in Entry 18 is not
restricted to agricultural land, and the words 'rights in' or 'over
land' confer very wide power which are not limited by rights
between the landholders inter se or the landholder or the State or
the landholder or the tenant. Mineral, being land, also falls within
the scope of Entry 18 of List II of the 7 th Schedule. Entry 18 of List
II treats land as a unit. In Mineral Area Development Authority49,
the Supreme Court held that minerals or ores in their natural state
are part of the earth and remain embedded unless extracted.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another 1995 Supp. (1) SC 596
Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Therefore, the land includes everything over and below the
surface. It was also held that the legislative competency of the
State to tax land under Entry 49 of List II remains unaffected by
the MMDR Act, 1957. Thus, the legislative power of the State to
enact the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, under Entry 18 of List II is not
affected by the MMDR Act, 1957. Entry 23 of List II is subject to
Entry 54 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India,
1950. In view of Section 2 of the MMDR Act, 1957, for matters not
specifically provided therein, the State retains the competency to
legislate based on Entry 23 of List II of the 7 th Schedule of the
Constitution of India, 1950. Therefore, the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021, is not ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.
Point (iii)
40. The petitioner in WP (C) No.38526/2023 has also sought
a declaration that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is repugnant to
the MMDR Act, 1957 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The learned
Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam submitted that under the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the property could be
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
acquired only on payment of adequate compensation, irrespective
of the purpose of acquisition and the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
which provides no compensation while vesting the minor minerals
with the State, is in direct conflict with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It
is further submitted that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is in
conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957.
41. It is settled that the plea of repugnancy under Article
254(1) of the Constitution would be attracted only if the two
statutes occupy the same field and there is a direct conflict
between the provisions of those statutes. The RFCTLARR Act,
2013, focuses on protecting landowners during compulsory
acquisition by ensuring fair compensation, rehabilitation, and
resettlement, while the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, vests
ownership of all mineral rights in the State Government, limiting
private ownership of subsoil minerals. The former is about
procedural fairness in acquisition, the latter about sovereign
control over natural resources. Thus, not only do those Acts relate
to different subject matters, but acquisition and vesting mentioned
therein are conceptually different. That apart, in view of the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
notwithstanding clause contained in Section 3 of the Minerals
Vesting Act, 2021, the said Act shall and will override the provisions
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, being
a later one and brought into force to deal with the specific
circumstances as demonstrated therein, to vest the subsoil rights
in the State, will have precedence over RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
42. Similarly, the MMDR Act, 1957, is a central legislation
that regulates mining activities across India, focusing on licensing,
concessions, royalties, and Union control. In contrast, the Minerals
Vesting Act, 2021, is a state-specific law that provides for statutory
vesting of ownership of all minerals in the State.
43. The three Acts differ in scope and purpose. Together,
they represent distinct but interlinked frameworks governing
resource extraction, land rights, and compensation. Thus, the
challenge based on repugnancy must fail.
Point (iv)
44. The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force in 2021
with effect from 30/12/2019. The petitioners in WP(C) Nos.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
14425/23, 15037/23, 10670/24 and 43302/24 challenge the
retrospective effect given to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021. It is
submitted that the State cannot take away the vested right
through legislation by applying it retrospectively.
45. It is settled that the power to make law on an Entry in
the 7th Schedule of the Constitution could be exercised both
prospectively and retrospectively unless there is an express
constitutional prohibition to make an enactment on that behalf 50.
It is equally settled law that the power to make law prospectively
would include the power to make the law retrospectively. Ext.P3
Act was preceded by Kerala Mineral (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance
43/2019 dated 29/12/2019, Ordinance 4/2020, Ordinance 12/2020,
Ordinance 11/2021, Ordinance 91/2021, and Ordinance 124/2021.
Ordinance 124/2021 was replaced by the Kerala Minerals Vesting
Act, 2021. Thus, the Ordinance was in force from 30/12/2019
onwards, and it was in the said circumstances, the Act was given
retrospective operation w.e.f. 30/12/2019. Accordingly, it must be
held that the retrospective operation cannot be faulted, nor would
Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Bihar, (1958) SCR 1335, and Rama Krishna v. State of Bihar, (1964) 1
SCR 897
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
it be declared ultra vires.
46. In view of the findings on points (i) to (iv), I hold that the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is constitutional and valid.
Points (v), (vi) and (vii)
47. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)
Nos.36843/2015, 15986/2023, 15037/2023 and 43302/2024 Sri
MKS. Menon submitted that even if the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
is considered constitutional, the State cannot claim royalty from
landholders for minerals extracted from their own land before
30/12/2019, the date on which the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
came into force, due to the Supreme Court's declaration in
Thressiamma Jacob 51 that minerals in the Malabar area do not
belong to the State but to the surface owner, and Section 17 A (3)
of the MMDR Act, 1957. Relying on the ruling by the Supreme Court
in Mineral Area Development Authority52, which states that royalty
is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the
lessor for the enjoyment of mineral rights, it is argued that the
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
State cannot levy royalty from landowners in the Malabar region
for extracting minor minerals from their own land. The learned
Senior Counsel further argued that neither the MMDR Act, 1957,
nor the KMMC Rules, 2015, contain provisions requiring permission
for self-extraction of minerals from one's own land; hence, the
respondent State cannot claim costs or fines on the grounds that
the extraction was unauthorized or illegal.
48. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C)
No.11397/2017 Sri.T.B.Hood submitted that there is no provision in
KMMC Rules, 2015, which enjoins owners of land in the Malabar
area, who are also owners of subsoil/mineral rights, to apply for
and obtain permits, licences, or leases to carry out quarrying
activities on their own land; hence, they have absolute right to
conduct quarrying operations on their land without any permit,
licence, or lease from any authority. The learned counsel further
submitted that for quarrying activities on land in which mineral
rights vest with private persons, the KMMC Rules, 2015, do not
impose liability on the property owner to pay royalty.
49. Per Contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
S. Kannan submitted that even if the extraction of the minor
mineral is from the land owned by private persons, where minerals
vest with them, the owner of the land has to comply with the
statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act,
1957, and the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory
permissions/licences/clearances from the competent authorities
concerned. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that since the petitioners raised minerals from the
subject properties without any statutory permissions or without
any lawful authority, the extraction carried out in their respective
properties has to be treated as illicit and illegal. So much so, the
State has every power to recover from them the minerals so raised
or, where such minerals have already been disposed of, the price
thereof and fine. It is also submitted that the State Government
has the right to levy royalty on the production and disposal of
minor minerals, irrespective of the ownership of the land. The
ownership of the subsoil rights within the Malabar area would not
make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect
royalty. Therefore, the holders of the land in the Malabar area are
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
also liable to obtain permission from the statutory authority and
pay royalty/rent, etc, before conducting any quarrying operations
on their land. Reliance was placed on Sirajuddin v. District
Collector53, Joby v. District Collector54, Chandramohan v. State of
Kerala 55 , Aloshias C. Antony v. Government of Kerala 56, Prakash
Nayak v. District Collector57 and Common Cause v. Union of India58.
50. First, let me deal with the contention that the owners of
the land in the Malabar area, who are owners of subsoil/mineral
rights also, have an absolute right to conduct quarrying operations
in their own land without any permit/licence/lease whatsoever
from any authority.
51. Mining operations are controlled and regulated by the
provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. Mining operation is defined in
Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as meaning 'any operation
undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral. Section 4 of
the Act says mining operations to be under licence or lease. It
2017 (1) KLT 756
2017 (1) KLT 183
2018 (4) KLT 627
2014 (1) KLT 536
2016 (4) KLT 102 (FB)
2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
reads thus:
"4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or
lease.―
(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance,
prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under
and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or of a
exploration licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease,
granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any
prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in
accordance with terms and conditions of a prospecting licence
or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act
which is in force at such commencement:
Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological
Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic
Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research of the
Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the
Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government
(by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration
Corporation Limited., a Government company within the
meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act,
2013 (18 of 2013), and any other entities including private
entities that may be notified for this purpose subject to such
conditions as may be specified by the Central Government.
Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any
mining lease (whether called mining lease mining concession
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
or by any other name) in force immediately before the
commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa,
Daman and Diu.
(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be
transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder.
(2) No mineral concession shall be granted otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder.
(3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with
the Central Government and in accordance with the rule made
under section 18, undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or
mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the
First Schedule in any area within that State which is not
already held under any mineral concession."
52. Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 provides that no
person shall undertake any mining operations in any area except
under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining
lease granted under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Section 4(2) provides that no mining lease shall be granted
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act
and the Rules made thereunder. Section 4(1A) says that no person
shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the
said Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 5(2) provides for
certain restrictions on the grant of a mining lease. It provides that
the State Government shall not grant a mining lease unless it is
satisfied that the applicant has a mining plan duly approved by the
Central Government or by the State Government in respect of the
concerned mine and for the development of mineral deposits in
the area concerned. Section 21 deals with penalties and sub-
section (1) thereof provides that whoever contravenes the
provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
five years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per
hectare of the area. Sub-section (5) of Section 21 provides that
whenever any person raises without any lawful authority, any
mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from
such person the mineral so raised or where such mineral has
already been disposed of, the price thereof, in addition thereto, the
State Government may recover from such person rent, royalty or
tax as the case may be for the period during which the land was
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
53. Invoking the power conferred under Section 15 of the
MMDR Act, 1957, the State of Kerala has framed the KMMC Rules,
2015. Chapter II of the KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with the grant of
quarrying permits in respect of lands in which minerals or mineral
right belong to Government and Chapter III deals with the grant of
quarrying permits in respect of lands in which mineral rights vest
with private persons. Chapter V of the KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with
the grant of quarrying lease in respect of lands in which minerals or
mineral rights belong to the Government and Chapter VII deals with
the grant of quarrying lease in respect of lands in which mineral
rights vest with private persons. Rule 3 of Chapter II, which deals
with the grant of quarrying permit, reads thus:
"3. Grant of quarrying permit.--(1) On application made to it
the competent authority under these rules may grant a
quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract any minor
mineral, other than dimension stone, from any specified land
within the limits of its jurisdiction and authority as notified by
the Government in the official Gazette from time to time on
payment of royalty as the competent authority may fix on the
basis of the rates specified in schedule I or IV, as the case
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
may be and also on payment of such surface rent and cess
as may be assessable on the lands.
(2) The competent authority may grant a permit for a lower
quantity than applied for or refuse to grant such permit for
reasons to be recorded in writing.
(3) The area under a quarrying permit shall be a contiguous
unit and shall not exceed one hectare.
(4) The competent authority under these rules shall send a
copy of the quarrying permit granted by it to the District
Collector and the Secretary of the Local Self Government
Institution concerned."
54. Rules 20 to 22 of Chapter III, which deal with the grant
of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which mineral right vests
with private persons, reads thus:
"20.Grant of quarrying permit.--On application made to him
in form 'A', a private person in whom is vested the mineral
rights in the lands owned by him may grant a quarrying
permit to any Indian National to extract and remove from a
specified land any minor mineral not exceeding 10,000
tonnes in quantity under one permit under the same
conditions as specified in Chapter II under which the
competent authority or the officer authorised by him in that
regard may grant a quarrying permit in respect of lands in
which the minerals vest in Government.
21.Duties of the grantor.--The private person who may grant
a quarrying permit under Rule 20 shall submit to the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
competent authority or any officer empowered by him in this
regard an attested true copy of the permit issued by him
to any person, within thirty days of its grant.
22.Prohibition of working of quarries.--If the Government or
competent authority has reason to believe that the grant of
a quarrying permit is in contravention of any of the provisions
of this Chapter, the Government or the competent authority
may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard,
direct the parties concerned not to undertake any quarrying
operations in the area to which the permit relates."
55. Indeed, Rule 20 does not mandate a permit from
authorities. However, going by the said Rule, for granting a
quarrying permit, by a person who is the owner of the subsoil, the
same procedure as the competent authority would undertake
under Chapter II has to be adopted.
56. Rule 108 deals with penalties and sub-rule (2) thereof
says that whenever any person raises without any lawful
authority any minor mineral from any land, the Government or the
competent authority may recover from such person or the
occupier of the land the mineral so raised, or where such mineral
has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also
recover from such person rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be,
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
for the mineral extracted by such person or occupier of the land
without any lawful authority.
57. The State of Kerala, invoking the power conferred under
Section 23C of the MMDR Act, 1957, framed the Transportation
Rules, 2015. For transportation of a minor mineral, the provisions
of the Transportation Rules, 2015 have to be followed. As per Rule
3(1), no person other than the lessee or holder of a quarrying
permit or movement permit under KMMC Rules, 2015 or Granite
Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 or Mining Lease under
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 shall stock, sell or offer for sale for
commercial purpose or trade any mineral or mineral products
mentioned in Schedule I of the KMMC Rules, 2015 or in Schedule II
of MMDR Act, 1957 in the State without holding a dealers' licence
under those Rules. Therefore, a statutory prohibition is
contemplated under Rule 3 of the Transportation Rules, 2015, to
stop, sell or offer to sell and transport or cause to be transported
any mineral subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
58. As already stated, as per Section 4 of the MMDR Act,
1957, no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area,
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of
a mining lease, granted under the Act and Rules made
thereunder. So also, as per Section 4 (1A), no person shall
transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral,
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules made thereunder. Therefore, there is an absolute prohibition
for undertaking any mining operations and consequential
transportation and storage of minerals, otherwise than in
accordance with the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made
thereunder. In Prakash Nayak v. District Collector59, the Full Bench
of this Court took the view that prohibition contained in Section
4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957 applies to all minerals, including
minor minerals and when the Rules framed by a State Government
do not contain provision to deal with such a situation or to deal
with violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, such
violation will have the consequences including prosecution, seizure
and confiscation as provided under Section 21 of the MMDR Ac,
2016 (4) KLT 102 (FB)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
1957. In Common Cause v. Union of India60, the Supreme Court
held that Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act makes it clear that no
person can carry out any mining operations except under and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease
granted under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder.
Obviously, any person carrying on mining operations without a
mining lease is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining.
59. Apart from procuring a quarrying lease/quarrying
permit to carry out mining operations, a person has to obtain
various other statutory permissions/clearances/licences, such as
approved mining plan and mining scheme as contemplated under
Rules 53 to 68 of KMMC Rules, 2015, environmental clearance
issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority as
is contemplated under EIEA Notification of 2006 and laid down by
the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana61, consent
to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, explosive
licence issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization
under the Explosive Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder and
2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC)
(2012) 4 SCC 629
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
licence issued by the Local Self Government institutions
concerned. By virtue of Rule 8 of KMMC Rules, 2015, a quarrying
permit can only be granted after obtaining statutory
licences/permissions/clearances as is contemplated under the law.
60. This Court in Sirajuddin v. District Collector62 and Joby
v. District Collector63 held that, despite the ownership of the subsoil
being conferred on the owner of the property, it does not detract
from the requirement for a lease/licence/permit to extract minor
minerals from such property. It was further held that in case of
extraction, even if made from land owned by private persons, the
owner is obliged under Chapter III of KMMC Rules, 2015, to get a
quarrying permit on the same conditions as in Chapter II of the said
Rules and submit an attested copy of the same to the competent
authority. Otherwise, the extraction of minerals made from such
lands would also be illegal, in which event, it will be open to the
State to invoke the provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 21
of the MMDR Act, 1957. In Chandramohan v. State of Kerala64, this
2017 (1) KLT 756
2017 (1) KLT 183
2018 (4) KLT 627
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Court held that mere ownership and possession of land within the
Malabar area would not make any difference insofar as the
authority of the State to collect royalty and that any person
indulging in quarrying activities in such land has to obtain an
Environmental Clearance from the statutory authority
concerned. In Aloshias C. Antony v. Government of Kerala65, it was
held that ordinary earth being a minor mineral, by virtue of Section
4 and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, no person except under and
in accordance with the terms of the licence to be obtained under
the Act and the Rules made thereunder, can raise/extract a minor
mineral or transport the same or store or caused to be
transported/stored as specified therein. The Supreme Court in
Common Cause v. Union of India66 held that illegal mining takes
within its fold the extraction of minor minerals without a mining
plan, mining scheme, environmental clearance, mining lease or a
statutory requirement, as the case may be, and would attract
Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. It was also held therein that
2014 (1) KLT 536
2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral
concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining. It has been
further held that in case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear
the consequences of illegality and that 100% of the price of the
legally or unlawfully mined mineral must be compensated by the
defaulter.
61. For the aforementioned reasons, petitioners cannot be
heard to contend that they need not take permission/licence from
any statutory authorities to extract minerals from their own land.
Even if the extraction of the minor minerals is from the land owned
by the private persons, the owner of the land has to comply with
statutory preconditions as contemplated under the MMDR Act,
1957 and the Rules made thereunder and obtain statutory
permissions/licences/clearances from the competent authorities
concerned. Admittedly, before the extraction of minor minerals
from their properties, none of the petitioners obtained
environmental clearance, explosive licence, licence from the local
self-government institutions concerned, respective consent from
the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, approved mining plan,
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
mining permit or mining lease. So much so, the extraction of minor
minerals by the petitioners from their properties without obtaining
any statutory permissions/licences/clearance would attract Section
21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015.
62. The next crucial question is whether the State can claim
royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own
land. It is trite that royalty is the consideration payable by the
person extracting minerals to the owner of the minerals in
proportion to the quantity extracted 67 . The Supreme Court in
Thressiamma Jacob 68 while declaring that the ownership of the
subsoil/mineral wealth of the land, comprised in the former
Malabar province, rests with the respective owners/jenmis and not
with the State, did not express its opinion regarding the liability of
the property owners to pay royalty to the State, as that issue had
been referred to a Larger Bench. Recently, the nine-judge bench of
the Supreme Court69 declared that royalty is not a tax and that it
is the private owner who is entitled to collect royalty when they are
D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
Mineral Area Development Authority etc. v. Steel Authority, (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
the owners. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. MKS Menon argued
that the right of the State to collect royalty depends on the vesting
of minerals, and since before the pre-vesting period (prior to the
enactment of the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021), ownership of the
minerals belonged to the owner of the surface; the State cannot
claim royalty. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Section 17A (3)
of the MMDR Act, 1957, which indicates that the private owner is
entitled to claim royalty when mineral rights are vested in the said
private person. Conversely, the learned Senior Government
Pleader Sri. S. Kannan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Dalmia Cement70 and that of this Court in Chandramohan71 to
argue that even when minerals vest in a private individual, the
State must still be paid royalty.
63. In Dalmia Cement 72 it was held that even if it is
assumed for the sake of argument that the cement companies are
pattadars (or the successor in respect of such pattadars) either
under the original ryotwari system or the orders of the 'ryotwari
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 279
Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2014) 2 SCC 279
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
patta' pursuant to the abolition of the estates/imams, and also
assume for the sake of argument that each of the appellant
companies is also the owners of the subsoil rights of their patta
lands, such ownership does not make any difference insofar as the
authority of the State to collect royalty is concerned. Dalmia
Cement 73 was dealing with those lands in which minerals were
vested through the Madras Estate Act, 1948, and the petitioners in
that case never challenged the authority of the State to collect
royalty. On the other hand, they had admitted their liability to pay
royalty. All that they asked for was a concessional rate, which was
not there in the Tamil Nadu Rules, much less in any Mineral
Concession Rules. Hence, the facts are totally different. There is no
conclusive finding in Dalmia Cement74 that owners of the minerals
are bound to pay royalty. The finding is that minerals are not vested
in Dalmia Cements Company, which was the petitioner therein.
Following Dalmia Cement 75 , this Court in Chandramohan 76 held
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 2014 (2) SCC 279
ibid
ibid
Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
that the ownership as declared by the Supreme Court would not
make any difference insofar as the authority of the State to collect
royalty is concerned. At any rate, after the declaration of law by
the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority77, the
observations in Dalmia Cement 78 and Chandramohan 79 cease to
have any effect on the point that the owner of the land must pay
royalty to the State. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 279 and
350 of the judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority 80
specifically held that royalty can be claimed only by the owner of
the minerals. Paragraphs 279 and 350 read as follows:
"279. As held in the above segments, royalty is paid to
the proprietor of the minerals for the exercise of mineral
rights. Minerals found in offshore areas are
constitutionally vested in the Central Government.
Therefore, the Central Government can statutorily and
contractually demand royalty from lessees for removal
or consumption of such minerals. In comparison, subsoil
minerals can either be legally vested in the States or
continue to remain vested with private landowners.
Resultantly, the payment of royalty under Section 9 of
Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 2014 (2) SCC 279,
Chandramohan v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 627
Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
the MMDR Act is paid either to the State Government or
private landowner, as the case may be.
350. The above formula shows that royalty is calculated
on the basis of the quantity of minerals extracted or
removed. [ Indian Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Royalties",
(2011) 4.] The yield from mineral-bearing land is nothing
but the quantity of mineral produced. Royalty is per se
not the yield from a mineral-bearing land, but the yield
(mineral produced) is the important factor in
determination of the rate of royalty. Moreover, royalty
can be considered as an income if it is paid to a private
landowner. [ H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India,
Vol. 3 (4th Edn.) 2468.] In case the minerals are vested
in the State, the royalty is paid to the State Government,
and hence assumes the form of non-tax revenues.
Therefore, royalty is relatable to the yield of the mineral-
bearing land as well as the income in case the minerals
vest in a private person. To this extent, we clarify the
reasoning of this Court in Goodricke [Goodricke Group
Ltd. v. State of W.B., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 707] ."
(Emphasis supplied)
64. That apart, in paragraph 130, it was affirmed that
royalty is a consideration paid by a mining lessee to the lessor for
the enjoyment of mineral rights and to compensate for the loss of
value of minerals suffered by the owner of the minerals. Thus, only
the owner can collect royalty.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
65. The petitioners have also raised a contention that the
demand for royalty is against Section 17A(3) of the MMDR Act,
1957, which reads as follows:
"17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.
xxxxx
(3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section(1A) or sub-section (2), the Central Government or the
State Government as the case may be undertakes prospecting
or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a
private person, it shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty,
surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time
at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this
Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been
undertaken by a private person under prospecting licence or
mining lease."
From the above, it is clear that only the owner of the mineral can
claim royalty, and even the State is liable to pay royalty to a private
person.
66. For quarrying activities on land in which mineral rights
vest with private persons, the KMMC Rules, 2015 do not cast
liability on the owner of the property to pay royalty to the
Government. Chapter III of the KMMC Rules, 2015, which deals
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
with the grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which
mineral rights vest with private persons, is silent regarding royalty.
Chapter IV deals with the grant of a quarrying permit in respect of
lands in which the mineral rights vest partly in the Government
and partly in private persons. It provides that royalty payable shall
be shared by the Government and the private person in proportion
to the shares they have in the minerals. Chapters III, IV, VII and
VIII of KMMC Rules, 2015 were omitted by virtue of the amendment
carried out to the KMMC Rules, 2015 by GO(P) No.16/2020/ID dated
12/6/2020. Under Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
(Central Government Rules), it was the State that was entitled to
collect royalty when minerals were vested in the State and as per
Rule 45, the words "State Government" have to be replaced by the
word "lessor" when minerals are vested in private persons. That
means, instead of the State, it is the lessor who is entitled to collect
royalty when minerals are vested in private persons. Similar
provisions are there in Rule 80 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. As far as
the authority of the State to recover royalty from a person who
raises minerals from any land illegally or without authority under
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108(5) of KMMC
Rules, 2015, it is permissible only in a case where the land was
unlawfully occupied by such a person. Admittedly, the respective
lands belong to the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that
they have occupied it unlawfully. Thus, in the absence of a specific
provision in the MMDR Act, 1957 or KMMC Rules, 2015 for payment
of royalty to Government with regard to self-extraction of minerals
and in view of the declaration of the law of the Supreme court in
Mineral Area Development Authority 81 that that royalty can be
claimed only by the owner of the minerals, the State cannot claim
royalty for minerals extracted by private persons from their own
land falling within the Malabar area prior to Minerals Vesting Act,
2021.
Points (viii) & (ix)
67. In WP(C) No.15986/2023, the petitioner sought a
declaration that Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, is beyond the
Mineral Area Development Authority etc v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) 10 SCC 1
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
delegated legislative power of the State u/s 15 of the MMDR Act,
1957, and also violative of Article 19 (1) (g) r/w Article 14 of the
Constitution. Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 mandates every
quarry owner to pay a consolidated payment of royalty if the owner
has a quarry as well as a crusher unit. It is contended that the
proviso under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957, enabling the
State to frame rules, specifically states that only once in three
years, royalty could be revised. However, Rule 89 of KMMC Rules,
2015 enables the State to collect royalty twice in a year, i.e. once
under Rule 7 from the leaseholder and once again under Rule 89
from the crusher unit owner, resulting in double enrichment. By
demanding royalty twice, in effect, the State is doubling the
demand every year, which authority is not vested with it, is the
submission. It is further contended that the unlawful demand of
royalty is interfering with the trade and business of the petitioner,
violating the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. The petitioner has also sought the refund of the
consolidated royalty, which, according to him, was paid under
compelling circumstances.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
68. By virtue of Article 304 of the Constitution, necessary
power had been conferred on the respective State legislatures to
frame laws concerning the restriction on trade, commerce and
intercourse among States. Entry 54 of the Union list and Entry 23
of the State list places the subject in issue, under the control of the
Union and the State, as it is applicable. Therefore, framing of
KMMC Rules, 2015 is well within the realm of the State.
69. KMMC Rules, 2015 have been amended as per
GO(P)No.38/2023/ID dated 31/3/2023, published in the
Extraordinary Gazette No.1231 dated 31/3/2023, invoking the
powers conferred on the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act,
1957. As per the amendment, Rule 89 has been deleted therefrom
w.e.f. 01/04/2023. The writ petition has been filed subsequently
only on 16/5/2023. Thus, essentially, the petitioner seeks to assail
the vires of the provision, which is no more in existence.
70. As per Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, a holder of a
quarrying lease for the extraction of granite (building stones) who
possesses metal crusher units for t h e production of granite
aggregates may opt for their registration under those rules by
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
paying a fee of one thousand rupees for each unit and opt for
payment of consolidated royalty for the mineral crushed by such
unit at the rates specified in Schedule III instead of paying royalty
at the rates specified in Schedule I. The petitioner is not entitled
to opt for registration under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, since
no quarrying lease has been issued to him. He is not a mineral
concessionaire as contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957 or
under the KMMC Rules, 2015. He did not obtain registration for his
metal crusher unit as contemplated under the erstwhile Rule 89 of
the KMMC Rules, 2015. For stocking, selling and exhibiting granite
building stones, a dealer's licence as contemplated under the
Transportation Rules, 2015, was issued to him. No quarrying lease
or quarrying permit has been issued to him for extracting granite
building stones from the property. Therefore, erstwhile Rule 89 of
KMMC Rules, 2015 has no application or relevance insofar as the
petitioner's case is concerned.
71. The petitioner has alleged that he has paid consolidated
royalty. He has produced Exts.P3, P3(A) and P3(B) receipts to
substantiate the same. However, a perusal of Exts.P3, P3(A) and
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
P3(B) would show that what has been levied as per those receipts
was the annual dealers' licence fee payable under the
Transportation Rules, 2015, in pursuance of the dealer's licence
issued to him. At no point in time, the petitioner paid any amount,
either towards consolidated royalty or royalty, under Rule 89 of the
KMMC Rules, 2015. Hence, he is not entitled to the refund of any
amount covered by Exts.P3, P3(A) and P3(B). He is not entitled to
the declaration sought for either.
72. Findings on the points (i) to (ix) above are summarised
below:
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, does not violate Articles 300A
and 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The State Legislature has legislative competence to enact the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
• The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is not repugnant to the MMDR
Act, 1957 and the RFTLARR Act, 2013.
• The granting retrospective effect to the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021, w.e.f. 30/12/2019 is valid and legal.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
• Thus, Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is constitutional and valid.
• Royalty is the consideration payable by the person extracting
minerals to the owner of the minerals in proportion to the
quantity extracted to compensate for the loss of value of
minerals suffered by the owner of the minerals. So much so,
only the owner of the minerals can claim royalty.
• The State cannot claim royalty for minerals extracted by
private persons from their own land that fall within the
Malabar area, prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021.
• Even for the self-extraction of minerals from one's own land,
where minerals are vested with him, the owner of the land
has to comply with the statutory preconditions as
contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957, and the Rules
made thereunder and obtain statutory permissions/
licences/clearances from the competent authorities
concerned. The extraction of minor minerals from such lands
without obtaining any statutory permissions/
licences/clearance would be illegal; in which event, it will be
open to the State to invoke the provisions under sub-section
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
(5) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of the
KMMC Rules, 2015 and can recover from such a person the
value of the minerals so raised as well as fine.
• Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 is not ultra vires the
delegated powers of the State Legislature under Section 15
of the MMDR Act, 1957. Nor does it violate Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.
Conclusions and Reliefs
73. To conclude, let me consider the reliefs prayed and
entitled by the petitioners in each case separately based on the
above findings.
74. The main prayer sought is to quash Exts.P2 and P3
demand notices issued by the 3rd respondent/Geologist demanding
royalty from the petitioners for the extraction of minerals from the
property owned by them prior to the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021. Besides challenging Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioners also
seek to strike down Rules 11 and 49 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, to
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
the extent that they provide for payment of royalty for granites
quarried from private properties or in the alternative to declare
that those Rules do not apply to the petitioners and their quarries
which are the subject matter of the writ petition.
75. Rule 11 is coming under Chapter II, and Rule 49 falls
under Chapter V of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Chapter II is regarding
permits to be issued in case of minerals vested in the Government,
whereas Chapter V deals with the leases in cases of land in which
minerals are vested in the Government. Neither of these Chapters
applies to the case of minerals vested in private persons. Therefore,
those Rules do not apply to the case of the petitioners.
76. Admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain any
permission/ licence/clearance from any statutory
authorities. Therefore, the State is entitled to proceed against
them under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 108 of
KMMC Rules, 2015 and recover the value of the minerals extracted
as well as fine. However, as I have already found that the State
cannot claim royalty for the minerals extracted by private persons
from their own land that fall within the Malabar area prior to the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the State cannot claim royalty from the
petitioners. In Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent has claimed not only the
value of the minerals extracted, but royalty as well. Hence, Exts.P2
and P3 to the extent they claim royalty are liable to be quashed.
77. The main prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5
order issued by the 4th respondent/Geologist directing the
petitioner to pay the royalty and cost of the bricks manufactured
by him using the extracted clay from his property. The petitioner
has also sought a declaration that he is not bound to obtain permit
under the KMMC Rules, 2015 for conducting quarrying activities in
his property. I have already found on point (vii) that even for self-
extraction of minerals from one's own land, the owner of the land
has to comply with the statutory preconditions as contemplated
under the MMDR Act, 1957, the Rules made thereunder and obtain
statutory permission/licence/clearance from the competent
authorities concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
the declaration sought. In Ext.P5, the 4th respondent has claimed
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
the value of bricks as well as royalty. In view of the finding that
the State cannot claim royalty for the minerals extracted by private
persons from their own land that fall within the Malabar area prior
to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the 4th respondent cannot claim
royalty from the petitioner. However, since the extraction of
minerals is without obtaining any statutory permission/
licence/clearance, the petitioner is liable to pay the value of the
extracted minerals under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. In
these circumstances, Ext.P5 order to the extent it claims royalty is
liable to be quashed.
WP(C) Nos. 14425/2023 and 15037/2023
78. The main prayer in these writ petitions is to declare that
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates
Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I have already
found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it
does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution. Hence,
the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration sought. The
petitioner in WP(C) No.15037/2023 challenges Ext.P1 notice issued
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
by the 1st respondent (Senior Geologist) and Ext.P2 notice issued
by the 2nd respondent (Deputy Tahsildar) demanding payment of
royalty, value of minerals and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully
quarried granite from his property. The petitioner in WP(C)
No.14425/2023 challenges Ext.P1 demand notice issued by the
1st respondent (Senior Geologist) demanding payment of royalty,
value of minerals and fine alleging he had unlawfully quarried
granite from his property and also Ext.P2 communication issued by
the 1st respondent to the Village Officer, Kannamangalam,
Malappuram District requesting to carry out revenue recovery
towards the demand of royalty. Admittedly, the petitioners did not
obtain any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any
statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore,
they are liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well
as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of
the KMMC Rules, 2015. Exts.P1 and P2 were issued after the
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 came into force. However, the
petitioners in both the writ petitions have a definite case that in
Ext.P1 it is not shown as to for which period the 1st respondent is
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
claiming royalty and for the granite extracted prior to 30/12/2019,
the date on which the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 came into force,
the State cannot claim royalty in view of the declaration of the law
by the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob82. In view of the said
averments, this Court, on 16/10/2023, in WP(C) No.14425/2023,
directed the learned Government Pleader to place on record an
affidavit about the period during which the petitioner has extracted
the minerals. Accordingly, the 1st respondent sworn in an affidavit.
In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had extracted
minerals illegally from his property since 2016. In view of the
finding on point No.(vii) that the State cannot claim royalty for
minerals extracted by private persons from their own land that fall
within the Malabar area prior to the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, the
1st respondent cannot claim royalty from the petitioners for the
minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019. Hence, Exts.P1 and P2 in
both the writ petitions to the extent they claim royalty prior to
30/12/2019 are liable to be quashed
Thressiamma Jacob v. Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
79. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates
Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I have already
found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it
does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution. Hence,
the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought. The
petitioner further challenges Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices
issued by the 1st respondent (Geologist) and 2nd respondent
(Deputy Tahsildar) respectively demanding payment of royalty,
value of minerals and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully quarried
granite from his property. Admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain
any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any statutory
authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, he is liable to
pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine under
Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules,
2015. Exts.P1 and P2 were issued after the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021, came into force. The petitioner does not have a case that
Exts.P1 and P2 pertain to the granite extracted prior to the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, as well. The petitioner purchased the
property in the year 2020 after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
came into force. Therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs
sought in the writ petition.
80. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional and ultra vires
as it is repugnant to the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013
and violates Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India. I
have already found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is
constitutional and it does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the
Constitution, nor does it conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957 and
RFTLARR Act, 2013. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the
declaration sought. The petitioner further challenges Ext.P11 order
issued by the 2nd respondent (Geologist) demanding payment of
royalty, value of minerals, and fine, alleging that he had unlawfully
quarried granites from his property. Admittedly, the petitioner did
not obtain any statutory permission/licence/clearance from any
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
statutory authorities for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, he
is liable to pay the value of the minerals extracted as well as fine
under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC
Rules, 2015. Ext.P11 was issued after the Minerals Vesting Act,
2021, came into force. The petitioner does not have a case that
Ext.P11 pertains to the granite extracted prior to the Minerals
Vesting Act, 2021, as well. Therefore, he is not entitled to any of
the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
81. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that
the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is unconstitutional as it violates
Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India and is in conflict
with the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013. I have already
found that the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, is constitutional and it
does not violate Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution; nor does
it conflict with the MMDR Act, 1957 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration sought.
The petitioners further challenge Ext.P1 order issued by the 1 st
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
respondent/Geologist demanding payment of royalty, value of
minerals and fine, alleging that they had unlawfully quarried
granite from their properties and and Ext.P2 recovery notice issued
by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Tahsildar (RR). Admittedly, the
petitioners did not obtain any statutory permission/ licence/
clearance from any statutory authorities for the extraction of
minerals. Therefore, they are liable to pay the value of the
minerals extracted as well as fine under Section 21 of the MMDR
Act, 1975 and Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. Ext.P1 was issued
after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, came into force. The
petitioners do not have a case that Exts.P1 and P2 pertain to the
granite extracted prior to Minerals Vesting Act, 2021, as well. Even
according to the petitioners, they became the exclusive owners of
the property in the year 2020 after the Minerals Vesting Act, 2021,
came into force. Therefore, they are not entitled to any of the
reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
82. The prayer in this writ petition is to declare that Rule 89
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
of KMMC Rules, 2015 is beyond the delegated legislative powers of
the State under Section 15 of the MMDR Act and violates Article
19(1)(g) r/w Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also
sought refund of the royalty allegedly collected from him under
Section 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015. I have found on points (viii)
and (ix) that the State has legislative competence to enact Rule 89,
and it does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. I have
also found that the writ petition was filed after the deletion of Rule
89 and that the said Rule has no application or relevance so far as
the case of the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has not
paid consolidated royalty under Rule 89 of the KMMC Rules, 2015.
Hence, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
83. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents
in refusing to issue an E-Pass under Rule 26(6) of the
Transportation Rules, 2015, enabling him to remove granite
materials stored in his crusher unit despite the department having
collected a licence fee from him and issued a dealer licence.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
84. The petitioner is not a mineral concessionaire as
contemplated under the MMDR Act, 1957 or KMMC Rules, 2015.
No quarrying lease or quarrying permit has been issued to him for
extracting granite stones from the property. The petitioner was
carrying out quarrying activities in his property without obtaining
any statutory permissions/ licences/clearances from any of the
statutory authorities concerned. Therefore, the extraction of
minerals was unauthorised and illegal. Hence, he is not entitled to
the issuance of a mineral transit pass and movement permit.
Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.
85. Resultantly, WP(C) Nos. 10670/2024, 38526/2023,
43302/2024, 15986/2023 and 254/2024 are dismissed. WP(C) Nos.
36843/2015, 11397/2017, 14425/2023 and 15037/2023 are
disposed of as follows:
(i) Exts.P2 and P3 in WP(C) No.36843/2015 to the extent
they claim royalty are quashed. The 3rd respondent
therein is directed to issue a fresh demand notice
excluding the component of royalty within two
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(ii) Ext.P5 order to the extent it claims royalty in WP(C)
No.11397/2017 is quashed. The 4th respondent
therein is directed to issue a fresh order excluding
the royalty component within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) Exts.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.14425/2023 to the extent
they claim royalty prior to 30/12/2019 are quashed.
The 1st respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh
demand notice excluding the royalty component for
the minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019 within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(iv) Exts.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.15037/2023 to the extent
they claim royalty prior to 30/12/2019 are quashed.
The 1st respondent therein is directed to issue a fresh
demand notice excluding the royalty component for
the minerals extracted prior to 30/12/2019 within
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36843 OF 2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT IN IA NO.2/2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000 DATED 20/4/2015
EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13/6/2014 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO MR.K.P.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND ANOTHER
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/10/2015 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/10/2015
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 254 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER LICENSE DATED
03/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.06.2022
FOR LICENSE FEE OF RS. 120,000 TOWARDS 30,000
METRIC TONNES
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 13.03.2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02.05.2023
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER EXTENDING THE STAY
ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.06.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CRUSHER UNIT LICENSE ISSUED
BY THE PANCHAYAT WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 10-07-
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION (C)NO. 15986/2023
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED 26.1 12023
APPEARING IN THE WEBSITE WHEN THE PETITIONER
APPLIED FOR `E PASS'
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT REGARDING TRANSIT PASS
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE
FROM 11-05-2020 TO 10-05-2021 BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE
FROM 23-06-2021 TO 22-06-2022 BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF DEALER'S LICENSE DATED 27-06-
2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 05-09-2023
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 20-
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
01-2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE DATED
27/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 30.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPIES OF THE TR5 RECEIPT NUMBERS
0567447 AND 0567446, DATED 30/06/2022 ISSUED
TO THE SON OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 06/08/2022 IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TAKEN ON
27/10/2023 BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/11/2023
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
09/10/2023,CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED -
02/08/2023, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR
RENEWAL OF DEALERS LICENCE.
EXHIBIT R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29/11/2023 IN WP(C) 15037/2023.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P16 A true copy of the deed No.912/1/2017 dated
29-03-2017 of Thirurangadi SRO wherein the
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
crusher unit of the writ petitioner is
situated.
Exhibit P17 A true copy of the deed No.3035/1/2017 dated
16-11-2017 of Thirurangadi SRO wherein the
quarry of the writ petitioner is situated.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 14425 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-11-2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
03.11.2023 SENIOR GEOLOGISTS ISSUED TO
VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT., KERALA REQUESTING TO CARRY OUT
REVENUE RECOVERY OF RS.1,43,00440/- (ONE
CRORE FOURTY THREE LAKHS FOUR HUNDRED FORTY
ONLY) TOWARDS THE DEMAND OF ROYALTY
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING
OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-12-2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-12-2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6-1-
2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE
SUPREME COURT IN IA NO. 1 & 2IN CIVIL APPEAL
NO. 4543/2000 DATED 20-4-2015
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RAJIV SARIN V
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS REPORTED IN
2011 (8) SCC 708
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02-05-
2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
03/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
,KANNAMANGALAM
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/09/2021
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1st
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 14/12/2021 IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/01/20222
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1st
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/6/2022
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
17/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF
RIGHTS) ORDINANCE OF 2019 (ORDINANCE 43 OF
2019)
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.4 OF 2020
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF ORDINANCE No.12 OF 2020
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.23 OF 2020
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.64 OF 2020
EXHIBIT R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.11 OF 2021
EXHIBIT R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.91 OF 2021
EXHIBIT R1(n) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE No.124 OF 2021
EXHIBIT R1(o) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) No. 16/2020/ID DATED
12/06/2020,WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRA
ORDINARY GAZETTE No.1420 ON 12/06/2020
EXHIBIT R1(p) TRUE COPIES OF THE GOOGLE SATELLITE MAPS
PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
FROM FEBRUARY 2016 TO 2023 DOWNLOADED FROM
THE GOOGLE EARTH.
EXHIBIT R1(q) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM WHERE
MINERALS WERE UNAUTHORISEDLY EXTRACTED.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15037 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF
RIGHTS) ACT, 2021
Exhibit P4 TRANSLATED COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED
16.11.2017
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 REPORTED IN
TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST [2013(9) SCC
725]
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015
AND 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543 OF
2000 PREVENTING COLLECTION OF ROYALTY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO
64266/2023 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) A true copy of the Certificate issued by the
District Collector Malappuram in Form 25
Exhibit R2(b) A true copy of the demand notice in Form 1
dated 13.03.2023
Exhibit R2(c) A true copy of the demand notice before
attachment of unmovable properties in Form 10
dated 13.03.2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH SKETCH
DATED 13-04-2023 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 4/2023 IN OS NO.
35/2023, HON'BLE MANJERI SUB COURT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER GRANITE AS MENTIONED IN
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Annexure-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSSUED BY THE
GEOLOGIST (SQUAD) DATED 15.09.2025
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15986 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRANSLATED COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED
17.11.2017
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE
FROM 11-05-2020 TO 10-05-2021 BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE
FROM 23-06-2021 TO 22-06- 2022 BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 11-05-2020 PAID BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 23-06-2021 PAID BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY DATED 24-06-2022 PAID BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P. ( C )
NO. 15037/2023 DATED 2ND MAY 2023 PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
20.04.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA IN IA NO. 1 & 2 OF 2014 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE DATED
27/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 30.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPIES OF THE TR5 RECEIPT NUMBERS
0567447 AND 0567446, DATED 30/06/2022 ISSUED
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
TO THE SON OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 06/08/2022 IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 27/10/2023 IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TAKEN ON
27/10/2023 BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.38/2023/ID DATED
31/03/2023 PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY
GAZETTE NO.1231 DATED 31/03/2023.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER GRANITE
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH SKETCH
DATED 13-04-2023 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 4/2023 IN OS NO.
35/2023, HON'BLE MANJERI SUB COURT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE BEARING NO.
400901/RPTL20/GPO/2023/6879 DATED 10-07-2023
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT BY
THE KANNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION FOR STOCKING AND SELLING AND/OR
PROCESSING OF MINERALS DATED 03-04-2019
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. D/L
REGI. NO. 01/2019-2020/ GR/DOM/M-1137/2019
UNDER THE KERALA MINERALS (PREVENTION OF
ILLEGAL MINING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION)
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
RULES 2015
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE DATED 06/11/2023
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
09/10/2023,CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P12 A true copy of the circular issued by the
Mining and Geology Department regarding the
Dealers' License Movement Permit
Exhibit P13 A true copy of the message received by the
petitioner from the official website of the
respondent dated 26-11-2023
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 11397 OF 2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 19-01-2017
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-01-2017
SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER, THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AND WITNESSES
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-02-2017 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (C)
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2017 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REVIEW PETITION
NO.190/2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4760/2017
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-03-2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP©
NO.25006/2015 DATED 14/12/2016
EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SIRAJUDHEEN V.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR REPORTED IN 2017 KHC 2703
DATED 8.2.2017
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38526 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED
16/04/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
SECRETARY, ALAKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RETAINING WALL TO THE
FAMILY PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY PHOTOGRAPH OF THE REMAINING
BOULDERS KEPT IN THE OTHER PART OF THE FAMILY
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO.
DCKNR/5347/2021-D4 DATED 04/11/2022 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT BEARING
REF. NO. RBML/KL/20-21/NRO/LOI-008 DATED
04/02/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
RELIANCE BP MOBILITY LTD. COCHIN.
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT
CONDITION OF EXHIBIT P-1 SITE.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. DOC/M-
CAMP/2023 DATED 09/05/2023 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KANNUR.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE LETTER DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P-7
NOTICE.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/08/2023
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST, KANNUR.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/09/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPONSE TO EXT. P-9 NOTICE.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
18/09/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KANNUR.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/08/2017 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 27891/2017 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 08/07/2013 OF
THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THRESSIAMMA JACOB
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
V. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY
& OTHERS REPORTED IN 2013 9 SCC 725.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF
RIGHTS) BILL, 2021 WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AS
BILL NO. 59 IN THE 15TH KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING OF
RIGHTS) ACT, 2021.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10670 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.09.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.02.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING
OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR RS.
7,80,000/- DATED 18.06.2020
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 02-
02-2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO SENIOR
GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DATED 02-02-
2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO VILLAGE
OFFICER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.04.2023
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.05.2023
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 TITLED
TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST REPORTED IN
2013 (3) KLT 275(SC)
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015
PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN I.A. NO.
1 & 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543 OF
2000; PREVENTING COLLECTION OF ROYALTY
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA
NOS. 64272/2023, 70247/2023 AND 64266/2023 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4540-4548/2000
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP© NO.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the letter No.DOM/M-1236/2019,
Dated 31/08/2021.
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the letter from Village Officer,
Kannamangalam, dated, 11/11/2021.
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the mahassar, dated 15/01/2022.
Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the mahassar, dated 21/06/2022.
WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases
2025:KER:97705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43302 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08-02-2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-11-2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA MINERALS (VESTING
OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2021
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED VIZ.
DOCUMENT NO. 177/1/2020 DATED 15-01-2020
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT DATED 8TH JULY 2013 TITLED
TRESSIAMMA JACOB -VS- GEOLOGIST REPORTED IN
2013 (3) KLT 275(SC)
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015
& 2 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NO
64266/2023 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4543/2000
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP© NO.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-03-
2024 IN WP© NO. 10670/2024 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
