Bombay High Court Considers Petitions Against Royalty Demands for Excavation During Building Construction Under Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Petitioners Argue Excavation Incidental to Permitted Construction Does Not Constitute Mining.

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging demands of royalty and penalty on excavated earth from building construction as illegal and without jurisdiction.

Petitioners sought writs of mandamus, certiorari, and declarations to quash impugned demand notices and prohibit authorities from levying royalty/penalty, and to declare Section 48(7) of the Revenue Code ultra vires (in WP 1408/2008).

Revenue authorities issued notices demanding royalty and penalty on excavated material, treating it as minor minerals, despite petitioners having valid building permissions.

Some members of the petitioner association had filed civil suits or appeals under Section 247 of the Revenue Code; the present writ petitions were filed directly in the High Court for an authoritative decision.

Whether excavation for building foundation constitutes mining or extraction of minor minerals under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to demand royalty and penalty when excavation is incidental to construction under valid building permissions.

Petitioners argued that excavation of plinth area for laying foundation is incidental to construction, not a mining activity, and they do not sell the excavated material. Petitioners contended that they obtained necessary non-agriculture use permission under Section 44 and building permission under MRTP Act, and therefore the demand of royalty is without authority. Petitioners asserted that penalty can only be levied if royalty is lawfully due, and demand of thrice the royalty as penalty is unjustified. Arguments of the respondents are not mentioned in the extracted text.

the activity of excavation of plinth area for the purposes of laying foundation of the proposed building can never be construed as a mining activity nor can be construed as excavation of minor minerals. The work of excavation of land for laying foundation was incidental to the activity of such construction.

Petitioners directly filed writ petitions in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Some members of the petitioner association had previously filed civil suits or statutory appeals under Section 247 of the Revenue Code.

• Societies Registration Act, 1860:
• Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:
• Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 44, Section 48, Section 247
• Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 45, Section 69
• Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
• Bombay Minor Minerals Extraction Rules, 1955:
• Constitution of India: Article 226