Full Judgment
Binod Kumar Roy and R.K. Singh, JJ.
1. The petitioner, who is a partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing and sale of bricks, has come up with a prayer to declare that the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (67 of 1957) and the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 do not apply for extracting earth from the surface of the bhumidhari land vested and settled with it and to quash the Recovery Certificates dated 20.12.1995 and 17.9.1996 (as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from realising the royalty for the assessment years 1993-94. 1994-95. 1995-96 and 1996-97 from the petitioner as well as from taking any step against the petitioner.
2. Sri J.C. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by placing reliance on paragraph 7 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., JT 1993 (1) SC 448, contended that the reliefs claimed for are fit to be granted.
3. Sri P.K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand contended that the questions raised stood squarely covered against thepetitioner by a direct Division Bench judgment of our own High Court in M/s. Ram Brick Field and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1986 ALJ 728, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3581 of 1986 preferred against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.10.1986 and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. We find substance in the arguments of Sri Bisaria. The Division Bench judgment rendered by our own High Court had considered the questions raised in this writ petition and has answered in negative. While answering the questions, it has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh. AIR 1976 SC 1393, and held that the rights of the former zamindars in the mines and minerals were extinguished with the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 and that the right to the minerals had passed on to the State as a consequence of the Act aforementioned as a result the State is owner of the minerals.
5. In State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., relied upon by Sri Bharadwaj, we find that in paragraph 7 of the judgment, the question as to whether brick-earth is a minor mineral was not disputed. What was urged therein was that it is not any of the mines or minerals covered by Section 41 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 1887. Here the question urged stands already settled not only by the decision in M/s. Ram Brick Field (supra), but also by an earlier judgment in Sharma and Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 All 386, holding that 'brick earth' is a minor mineral within the meaning of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and every person would have to pay the royalty for extracting earth for manufacture of bricks. There two clear cut decisions of Division Benches are binding on us, specially when againstthe latter decision even the Supreme Court did not grant special leave on 13.10.1986.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.
7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but without there being any order as to cost.