Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gopal Krishan Mahabir Prashad vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049551
2024:PHHC:049551
RSA-208-1992 (O&M) --1--
137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-208-1992 (O&M)
Decided on:-10.04.2024
M/s Gopal Krishan Mahabir Parshad Brick Kiln Owner
thr. Its partner Gopal Krishan ....Appellant..
vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgments and decrees dated 22.04.1989 and 21.03.1991 passed by the
Courts below, whereby, a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance
of appellant-plaintiff, for restraining respondents from arresting its partners
and also from effecting any recovery of royalty and penalty vide letter dated
15.10.1986, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the appellant being a partnership firm was
running brick kiln while using clay from the land situated within the revenue
estate of village Daha, District Bhiwani, having obtained license from the
prescribed authorities since 1976-77, besides the said land being under lease
from the concerned Gram Panchayat. It was pleaded further that somewhere
in the year 1981-1982, the revenue estate of village Daha was shifted from
District Bhiwani to District Hisar and a notice dated 15.10.1986 was served
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049551
2024:PHHC:049551
RSA-208-1992 (O&M) --2--
upon the appellant-firm against a recovery of Rs.72,968/- being due towards
the royalty on account of digging of minor mineral (brick earth) between
August, 1976 to March 1982, followed by issuance of arrest warrants against
its partners. Hence, the suit.
4. Upon notice, a detailed written statement was filed on behalf of
the defendants-respondents wherein it was submitted that though a license
was obtained by the appellant-firm for the purpose of running of brick kiln
besides having obtained land on lease from Gram Panchayat, Daha,
however, under the provisions of Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1964 (for short, "1964 Rules"), the appellant-firm was enjoined to pay
royalty to the office of respondent No.2, which was thus competent to issue
the recovery notice and the same was therefore in consonance with the
relevant rules and the regulations.
5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.1989,
dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff while holding
that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove on record the payment receipts
pertaining to royalty between August 1976 to March 1982, though the
payment towards the same for the later period was established on record.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-plaintiff filed first appeal,
however, the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
21.03.1991 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar.
7. The present appeal was filed, assailing the findings recorded by
the Courts below.
8. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049551
2024:PHHC:049551
RSA-208-1992 (O&M) --3--
illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below, in the
absence of any evidence been produced on record from the side of the
appellants-plaintiffs as regards payment of royalty between August 1976 to
March 1982 and thus, in the absence of the best evidence having not been
produced on record, the Courts below were well within their right to dismiss
the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff and thus, the judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below warrant no interference.
10. Upon hearing the learned counsel representing the respondents
and having gone through the paper book, I find substance in the present
appeal on the sole ground of the claim set-up by the respondents-defendants
in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 15.10.1986, being not made out.
In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, there being no proof
on record that the land from where brick earth was being extracted was
owned by the respondent-State of Haryana.
11. Reference in this regard can be made to the law laid down by
this Court in case of "Dr. Shanti Saroop and another vs. State of Punjab
and others", 1969 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 79 and "M/s Om Parkash
Brick Kiln owner vs. State of Punjab and others", 2008 (1) RCR (Civil)
447. Relevant extract from para 82 of Dr. Shanti Saroop case (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:-
82. .....It is only from such areas where this minor
mineral vests in the Government that the right to charge royalty is
made. It has been emphasised in the letters issued by the State
Government to the lessees that the Shariat Wajab-ul-Arz is to be
examined in every case to find out whether the property in the
minor mineral vests in the State Government. As held in Kushal
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049551
2024:PHHC:049551
RSA-208-1992 (O&M) --4--
Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others (supra), the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the rival claims of the
parties relating to ownership of the mineral rights in the land does
not appear to be barred by any provision of law and any party
wanting a decision on this point can institute a suitable action
according to law. The State Government itself has not claimed
royalty on the minor minerals which are not owned by it .....
12. In this case, no evidence on record by respondent-State was
produced that as per Shariat Wajab-ul Arz, the land in dispute taken on lease
by the appellant from Gram Panchayat, from where brick earth was
extracted ever vested in the respondent-defendant. As the demand of royalty
was made by respondent, the primary burden was upon it and in the absence
of any such evidence on record, the claim made by respondent being based
on impugned notice as well the follow up action based there upon was
wholly without any legal basis.
13 The aforesaid aspect of the matter was never considered by
either of the Courts below, thus, in the given facts and the aforementioned
judgments being applicable thereupon, the present appeal is allowed and the
findings recorded by the Courts below are hereby set aside, consequently,
the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is decreed and the law points involved
in the present appeal are answered in the aforesaid terms.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of.
10.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
4 of 4
