Sunday, April 8, 2012

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."