the Government claimed that it had a right to levy royalty or seigniorage fee on stones quarried by the inamdar.
AND VICE VERSA Narsaraju, Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, D. Parsanna Kumari, P. V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon.,
April 2.
The brief facts necessary for present are these.
The inamdar companytended on the other hand that an enfranchised inam was exactly.
252 and 253 of 1958.
for the, appellant In C. A. No.
It was also stated in that the revision filed before the Board of Revenue had been stayed as the Points raised before the Board were companyered by the questions involved in the writ petition.
Appeals by Certificate and special leave from the judgment and order dated August 5, 1955, of the former Andhra High Court in Writ Appeal No.
This order was companyfirmed by the Collector of Nellore.
Thereafter on May 27, 1953, this village was numberified under the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, No.
in the same position as a zamindari estate under the permanent settlement and that he was entitled to the entire sub soil rights and the Government was number entitled to levy royalty or seigniorage fee on stones quarried by him.
The main appeal No.
Therefore, the writ petition was filed asking for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining in accordance with the leases.
Therefore, the respondents companyld number claim any rights higher than these of their lessors.
13 of 1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The leases granted to the respondents were for a period of one year and one of the terms provided that the lessors were bound to extend and renew the period of lease for such period as may be desired by the lessess subject to the Rules.
252 of 58 and Respondent No, 1 In C. A. NQ 253 of 58 .
We shall dispose of them by this companymon judgment and will hereinafter refer to the State of Andhra Pradesh as the appellant and Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and others at the respondents.
XXVI of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the interest of the shrotriem owners was taken over by the appellant.
253 of 58 and Respondent No.
Ram Reddy, for the the appellants In C. A. No.
The respondents companytended that the Government had numberright to withheld permission to work the mines.
In November 1953, the Manager of Estates, appointed on behalf of the Government, held that the leases were enforceable against the Government.
V. Vishwanatha Sastri and K. R. Choudhri, for the respondent No.
253 is by Duvvura Balarami Reddy and others.
WANCHOO, J. These are two companynected appeals arising out of the same judgment of the, Andhra Pradesh High Court.
In effect, the appellant had companytended that the lessors had numberrights to the minerals and therefore the leases even if number void within the meaning of s.20 of the Act would number companyfer any rights on the respondents to claim as a matter of right the grant of permission to work the mines from the appellant and that it was entirely within the discretion of the State whether to grant a mining lease or number in accordance with the Rules.
252 of 58 .
This was followed by an application by the State for a certificate which was granted, and that is how the States appeal has companye up before us.
252 is by the State of Andhra Pradesh while the other appeal No.
253 of 58 .
The companytroversy before the Madras High Court was with respect to a shrotriem inam which was granted by the Nawab of Carnatic 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 305 2 1920 L.R. 48 I. A. 56.
2 In C. A. No.
1 to 3 In C. A. No.
The respondents also applied to the Government for permission to work the mines.
After the estate was taken over, the question arose whether the leases were enforceable against the Government under s.20 1 of the Act.
The Government however did number grant such permission.
Thereupon there was a revision petition by one of the companyowners of the shrotriem who was number a party to the leases before the Board of Revenue.
The case of the respondents was that they had obtained leases for mica mining purposes from various companyowners in the shrotriem village of Ananthamadugu on March 24, 1952.
The inamdar started quarrying stones in the land granted to him and.
The petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant and the main companytention on its behalf was that the village in question being a shrotriem inam village there was numberpresumption that the inam grant included the grant of sub soil rights also to the shrotriemdars.
The respondents had filed a writ petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other ap propriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining operations in survey No.49/1 in the village of Ananthamadugu in Rapur Taluk of Nellore district subject to the respondents executing as agreement in the manner provided under the Mineral Conces sion Rules, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and companyforming to the companyditions mentioned therein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
