Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned compensation for land acquired for the Tungabhadra Project, specifically whether the respondent, Swami Satyanand Saraswati, as successor to Swami Nijananda, held subsoil rights to a granite hillock under a patta granted by Nawab Salar Jung III. The original jagir was granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1820 to his prime minister Nawab Salar Jung I, covering several villages including Madlapur. In 1930, Nawab Salar Jung III granted an island in Madlapur comprising survey numbers 154, 312, and 313, including a hillock rising to 250 feet and measuring 290 acres, to Swami Nijananda. When the area was acquired in February 1946 for the Tungabhadra irrigation and hydroelectric project, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 24 July 1950, disallowing the claim for the granite hillock on the ground that the grant to Swami Nijananda did not cover it. The respondent claimed Rs.29,91,600; the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.31,260-8-0 as total compensation. On reference, the District Judge enhanced compensation to Rs.48,892 exclusive of statutory allowance and interest, but held that the claimant had no right to minerals and quarries based on two Farmans (Exs. A-21 and A-22), Section 2(d) of the Mines Act and Section 3 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. The High Court reversed, holding that the Farmans did not affect subsisting rights, that the question whether the jagir included granite had never been raised, that the State had failed to produce the original grant, and that granite was not a mineral, thus entitling the respondent to compensation. The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising G.K. Mitter, K.S. Hegde and P. Jaganmohan Reddy, allowed the State's appeal. It held that it was for the respondent to prove the grant of mineral or quarry rights from the Nizam to the jagirdar and from the jagirdar to his predecessor; no presumption existed that the sovereign had parted with mineral rights. Even assuming the Nizam conferred mineral rights, the patta showed that the contemplation was only cultivation or grazing, and exclusion of fruit-bearing trees indicated no intention to part with subsoil rights by implication. Applying the test that granite is a mineral in the commercial and landowner sense, the Court concluded that the respondent had no right to the granite or quarries. The decision set aside the High Court's finding and denied compensation for the hillock.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Mineral and Subsoil Rights - Burden of Proof - Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1907, Section 3; Mines Act, 1952, Section 2(d) - Respondent claiming compensation for granite and quarries had to establish grant of mineral rights from Nizam to jagirdar and from jagirdar to predecessor; no presumption arose that sovereign parted with mineral rights; District Judge had held no right based on Farmans and these sections, but Supreme Court based decision on failure of proof. Held that respondent had not discharged burden (Paras 287-289).
B) Property Law - Interpretation of Grant - Implied Inclusion of Subsoil - Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1907 - Purpose of grant and clauses determine whether subsoil rights pass absent express mention; if grant was for cultivation/grazing and excluded fruit-bearing trees, no implied grant of minerals; court examined patta Ex.49 and concluded only surface rights granted. Held that subsoil rights were not included (Paras 292).
C) Mining Law - Definition of Mineral - Granite as Mineral - Mines Act, 1952, Section 2(d) - Test is meaning in vernacular of mining, commercial, and landowner community at date of instrument; granite qualifies as mineral under this test; therefore respondent had no right to granite or quarries. Held that granite is a mineral and respondent's claim failed (Paras 293).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent entitled to sub-soil rights under patta granted to predecessor and to compensation for granite/quarries; whether granite is a mineral; burden of proof
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; respondent not entitled to compensation for granite/quarries as no mineral or subsoil rights were granted under the patta. The High Court's decision was set aside.
Law Points
- Burden on claimant to prove grant of mineral rights
- no presumption of subsoil rights
- purpose of grant determines inclusion of subsoil
- surface user only excludes minerals
- granite is mineral in commercial sense
Case Details
1971 LawText (SC) (03) 21
Civil Appeal No. 496 of 1966
G.K. Mitter, K.S. Hegde, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
1971 AIR 1569, 1971 SCR 284
S. T. Desai, B. D. Sharma, Shyamala Pappu, S. P. Nayar, M. Natesan, B. Parthasarathy, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain
Swamy Satyanand Saraswati, Religious Preacher, Raichur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal concerning compensation for acquired land with granite hillock under Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act
Remedy Sought
Respondent Swami Satyananda sought enhanced compensation for acquired land including granite hillock and quarry rights; State of Mysore appealed against High Court decision granting compensation
Filing Reason
Land in Madlapur village acquired for Tungabhadra Project; dispute over entitlement to subsoil/mineral rights in acquired land
Previous Decisions
Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.31,260-8-0 disallowing granite hillock claim; District Judge enhanced to Rs.48,892 but held no mineral rights; High Court allowed appeal, holding granite not mineral and jagir grant included granite, thus respondent entitled to compensation
Issues
Whether the respondent was entitled to sub-soil rights by virtue of the pattas granted in favour of his predecessor-in-interest by Nawab Salar Jung III
Whether the respondent consequently became entitled to compensation for granite and quarries as minerals
Whether granite is a mineral within the meaning of the Mines Act and commercial usage
Whether the burden of proof lay on the respondent to establish grant of mineral rights
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent claimed that the patta granted by the jagirdar conferred subsoil and mineral rights, entitling him to compensation for the granite hillock acquired for the Tungabhadra Project.
The State argued that the grant did not include minerals; the District Judge had relied on Farmans Exs. A-21 and A-22 and provisions of the Mines Act and Hyderabad Land Revenue Act to deny quarry rights.
The High Court held that the Farmans only explained Section 63 of the Land Revenue Act and did not affect subsisting rights; it also held granite was not a mineral and thus the respondent was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
A claimant asserting mineral or quarry rights under a jagir or patta grant must prove the grant of such rights from the sovereign to the jagirdar and from the jagirdar to the claimant; no presumption arises that mineral rights passed. The purpose of the grant and all its clauses determine whether subsoil rights were intended; where the grant contemplates only cultivation or grazing and excludes fruit-bearing trees, no implied grant of minerals occurs. Granite is a mineral under the commercial and landowner meaning at the date of the instrument.
Judgment Excerpts
It was for the respondent to establish his claim to minerals or quarry rights by putting forward proof of the grant thereof by the Nizam to Salar Jung and to show that his rights in the land held by him were co-extensive with those of Nawab Salar Jung 111.
What has to be considered in each case is the purpose for which the lands are leased or an interest created therein with all the clauses which throw any light on the question as to whether the grantor purported to include his rights to the sub-soil in the grant when there was no express mention of it.
Since granite is a mineral according to this test the respondent had no right to the granite or quarries.
Procedural History
In 1820, the Nizam of Hyderabad granted a jagir to Nawab Salar Jung I, including village Madlapur. In 1930, Nawab Salar Jung III granted a patta for an island in Madlapur comprising S. Nos. 154, 312, 313 with a granite hillock to Swami Nijananda. In February 1946, the area was proposed for acquisition for the Tungabhadra Project. A final notification was issued on 16 June 1947, and the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 24 July 1950, disallowing the granite hillock claim. On reference, the District Judge enhanced compensation to Rs.48,892 but held no mineral rights. The respondent appealed to the Mysore High Court, which allowed the appeal and held granite not a mineral. The State of Mysore appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and denied compensation for granite/quarries.
Acts & Sections
- Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1907: Section 3, Section 63
- Mines Act, 1952: Section 2(d)
- Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act:
