Subsoil rights are separate and they do not form part of the surfacial land

Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision in the case of State of A.P. v. Duvvuru Balarami Reddy reported at AIR 1963 SC 264 upheld that subsoil rights do not form part of surfacial rights of land.  The pattedar/owner of the land is entitled only for the surfacial rights and subsoil rights normally vest in the State.

The aforesaid finding was given in the case of  K. Thippanna Alias Thippeswamy Vs. Varalakshmi And Anr., while deciding that in a decree for partition of land belonging to joint family, a party (plaintiff) cannot claim as of right a share in extracted minerals stored by defendants on the land in absence of any evidence that he was co-licensee under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.  The relevant portion of the judgement is as under:- 

"12.     Even   assuming   for   the   sake   of   arguments   that   there   is   iron ore extracted from and stored on the decree scheduled property by the (defendant) appellant herein, in our opinion, the respondent is not entitled, as of right, to a share in the iron ore by virtue of her being   a   co-sharer   in   the   decree   scheduled   property.     It   must   be remembered   that   the   suit   was   for   partition   of   the   suit   scheduled property, on the ground that the same is the joint family property of the   1st  respondent's   father   and   the   appellant   herein.     The   plaint schedule does not deal with the subsoil rights of the various items of   landed   property   included   therein.     It   is   well   settled   in   law   that subsoil rights do not form part of surfacial rights of the land. The pattedar / owner of the land is entitled only for the surfacial rights and subsoil rights normally vest in the State (See  State of Andhra  Pradesh Vs Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 264). Therefore,   assuming   for   the   sake   of   arguments   that   the   appellant herein   did,   in   fact,   win   the   mineral   from   the   decree   scheduled property, the respondent is not entitled for the share in the same on the ground that she is entitled for a half share of the surface of the property from out of which, the iron ore was (allegedly) extracted.

Extraction   of   the   minerals   is   governed   in   this   country   by   the Provisions   of  the  Mines  and   Minerals   Development   and  Regulatory Act,   1957,   which   requires   a   license   to   be   acquired   by   any   person interested   in   carrying   on   the   mining   activity.     Such   a   license   is granted under the said Act, subject to various rules and regulations and   including   a   requirement   of   payment   of   royalty   on   the   part   of the   licensee   as   the   mineral   essentially   belongs   to   the   State. Without any pleading or proof in this regard to the effect that the respondent   is   a   licensee   under   the   provisions   of   the above mentioned Act, the respondent is not entitled, automatically, to claim a share in the mineral alleged to have been extracted by the appellant herein." 

Supreme Court issued Guidelines in order to reduce landlord-tenant litigation.

While deciding the Special Leave Petition against the interim order of High Court, for increasing rent of the premises, Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ahmad Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan¸ held that one half of the lis between the landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if the tenant agrees to pay the present market rate of the tenanted premises to the landlord.  The tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and the landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict somehow or the other.  That looking at the problem which society faces at large Supreme Court framed certain guidelines to be followed in landlord-tenant litigation and held as under:-  

“21. According to our considered view majority of these cases are filed because landlords do not get reasonable rent akin to market rent, then on one ground or the other litigation is initiated. So before saying omega, we deem it our duty and obligation to fix some guidelines and norms for such type of litigation, so as to minimise landlord-tenant litigation at all levels. These are as follows:-

(i) The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, after every three years and enhanced rent should then be made payable to the landlord. If the rent is too low (in comparison to market rent), having been fixed almost 20 to 25 years back then the present market rate should be worked out either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding areas, let out on rent recently.

(ii) Apart from the rental, property tax, water tax, maintenance charges, electricity charges for the actual consumption of the tenanted premises and for common area shall be payable by the tenant only so that the landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing would be deductible. In case there is enhancement in property tax, water tax or maintenance charges, electricity charges then the same shall also be borne by the tenant only.

(iii) The usual maintenance of the premises, except major repairs would be carried out by the tenant only and the same would not be reimbursable by the landlord.

(iv) But if any major repairs are required to be carried out then in that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to adjustment of the amount spent thereon, would have to be worked out between the parties.

(v) If present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for his eviction against such a tenant at least for a period of 5 years. Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premises.

(vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official valuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter.

(vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and adequate, keeping in mind, location, type of construction, accessibility with the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc. Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord.”

Such guidelines will definitely help in speedy dispute resolution, though it is high time that the legislature comes out with the new Rent Law which addresses the present day problems of the landlord – tenant.