In a landmark verdict last week, the Supreme Court has held that ownership over minerals that lie beneath the soil does not necessarily lie with the state. A three-member bench, headed by Justice R M Lodha, concluded: “there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth sub-soil rights vest in the state; on the other hand, the ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process.”
The verdict came in response to a bunch of appeals against a ruling of the Kerala High Court in August, 1999. The cases in the high court related to whether the owners of “jenmom” lands in the Malabar area in Kerala are the proprietors of the soil and the minerals below it. The high court said that though initially the rights were with the jenmom land owners, but subsequent to the extension of the ryotwari settlement in Malabar during the British period, the ownership of “jenmom” land holders or the “jenmis” over subsoil minerals was transferred to the government. The Kerala bench dismissed the petitions, stating that “the minerals belong to the government”.
The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Referring to the historical context of land tenure and sub-surface mineral rights, the apex court noted that till date no law has been made in the country that “deprives the ryotwari land holders of the right to subsoil/ minerals” or “which transferred such right to the state”.
State has no absolute proprietary right
The bench further made particular reference to the board standing order No. 10, dated March 19, 1888, of the then Madras Province, to reaffirm their argument. Board standing orders (BSO), were formulated by composite Madras Revenue Board in 1878. BSOs are collections of resolutions made by the Board for its own conduct of business as well as for regulating the procedure in the matter of collection of revenue by subordinate revenue tribunals and executive functionaries. The BSO cited mentions that “the state lays no claims to minerals”, especially with respect to estates held on sanads of permanent settlement, in enfranchised inam lands, in religious service tenements confirmed under the inam rules on perpetual service tenure, and in lands held by titles or deeds issued under the wasteland rules, prior to October 7, 1970, in which no reservation of the right of the state to minerals is made. However as per the BSO, the state (or the then British government), claimed a “limited right” in minerals with respect to lands that are either occupied for agricultural purposes under ryotwari pattas, or “jenmom” lands in Malabar.
| History of dispute
“Jenmom” land refers to land held by a person as a birthright. Until the conquest of Malabar by the Mohammedan princes of Mysore, the “jenmis” had tenure of their lands free of any liability; they did not make any payment, either in money or in kind, to the government. The “jenmis” or the landholders exercised the right to sell, mortgage or otherwise deal with the property as they deemed fit. In the light of history, the apex court noted that later when the ryotwari settlements were made by the British government in the Malabar area, it made it obligatory for the “jenmis” to pay revenue to the state with respect to their lands, while maintaining their proprietary rights. The state neither claimed any proprietary right over the mineral wealth in a ryotwari patta or in “jenmom” lands in Malabar. |
|
|
Mining regulations affirm ownership rights
The bigger question