Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
BANARSI DASS CHADHA & BROS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
L.T. GOVERNOR, DELHI ADMN. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1978
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
DESAI, D.A.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1587 1979 SCR (1) 271
1978 SCC (4) 11
ACT:
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957, S. 3(e)-Brick-earth. whether a minor mineral. within
the meaning of that expression ’Minor Mineral’, as defined
in s. 3(e).
HEADNOTE:
S. 3(e) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957 defines "’Minor Mineral’ as meaning
building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other
than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other
mineral which the Central Government may, by Notification in
the official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral". In
exercise of the power conferred by s. 3(e) of the Act the
Central Government declared inter-alia brick-earth as a
’minor mineral’.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court
^
HELD: ( I ) The word ’mineral’ has no fixed but a
contextual connotation. If ’mineral’ is not a term of art it
is a word of common parlance, capable of multiplicity of
meanings depending upon the context. The word is
occasionally used in a very wide sense to denote any
substance that neither animal nor vegetable Sometimes it is
used in a narrow sense to mean no more than precious metals
like gold and silver. Again the word ’minerals’ is often
used to indicate substances obtained from underneath the
surface of the earth by digging or quarrying. though it is
not always so. [273 A-C, 274 F]
In the context of the ’Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, the word Mineral is of sufficient
amplitude to include brick-earth. If the expression ’minor
mineral’ as defined in the Act, includes ’ordinary clay‘ and
’ordinary sand’. there is no earthly reason why brick-earth
should not be held to be ’any other mineral’ which may, be
declared as a ’minor mineral’. [1275 B-C]
Bhagwan Das v. State. Of U.P., [1976] 3 SCR 869,
applied
Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 Pat. 491; Amar
Modilal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 Punjab and
Haryana 356; Sharma & Co. v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 All.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
386 approved.
State of West Bengal v. Jagdamba Prasad, AIR 1969 Cal.
281; overruled.
Todd Birleston & Co. v. The North Eastern Railway Co.,
[1903] I K.B. 603; quoted with approval.
(2) A substance must first be a mineral before it can
be notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power vested
in the Central Government under s. 3(e) of the Act. Brick-
earth being a mineral. the Central Government has correctly
notified it as a ’minor mineral’. [272 G-H]
272
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1 278 of
1978.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order 15-
11-1976 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 96 of
1971.
B. Dutta for the Appellant.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. General and R. N. Sachthey
for Respondents 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-We granted special leave and heard
arguments on the limited question whether "brick-earth" is a
’minor mineral’ within the meaning of that expression as
defined in Section 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development’) Act. 1957.
The definition is as follows:
"Minor mineral’ means building stones, gravel?
ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for
prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the
Central Government may, by Notification in the official
Gazette declare to be minor mineral ;"
In exercise of the power conferred by Section 3(e) of the
Act, the Central Government declared the following minerals
to be minor minerals
"Boulder, Shingle, Chalcedony pebbles used for
ball mill purposes only, limeshell kanker and limestone
used for lime burning, murrum, brick-earth, fuller’s
earth, bentonite road metal, reh-matti, slate and shale
when used for building material;"
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant
was that a substance had to be a mineral before it could be
notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power under
Section 3(e) of the Miens and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957. He urged that brick-earth was not a
mineral and, therefore, it could not be notified a minor
mineral.
We agree with the learned Counsel that a substance must
first be a mineral before it can be notified as a minor
mineral pursuant to the power vested in the Central
Government under Section 3(e) of the Act. The question,
therefore, is whether brick-earth is a mineral. The
expression "Minor Mineral" as defined in Section 3(e)
includes ’ordinary clay’ and ’ordinary sand’. If the
expression "minor mineral" as defined in Section 3(e) of the
Act includes ’ordinary clay’ and
273
‘ordinary sand’, there is no reason why earth used for
the purpose A of making bricks should not be comprehended
within the meaning of the word "any other mineral" which may
be declared as a "minor mineral" by the Government. The word
"mineral" is not a term of art. It is a word of common
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
parlance, capable of a multiplicity of meaning depending
upon the context. For example the word is occasionally used
in a very wide sense to denote any substance that is neither
animal nor vegetable. Sometimes it is used in a narrow sense
to mean no more than precious metalls like gold and silver.
Again, the word "minerals" is often used to indicate
substances obtain- . ed from underneath the surface of the
earth by digging or quarrying. But this is not always so as
pointed out by Chandrachud, J (as he then was) in Bhagwan
Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh,(1) where the learned judge
said (at p. 874):
’It was urged that the sand and gravel are
deposited on the surface of the land and not under the
surface of the soil and therefore they cannot be called
minerals and equally so, any operation by which they
are collected or gathered cannot properly be called a
minerals operation. It is in the first place wrong to
assume that mines and minerals must always be sub-soil
and that there can be no minerals on the surface of the
earth. Such an assumption is contrary to informed
experience. In any case, the definition of mining
operations and minor minerals in section 3(d) and (e)
of the Act of 1957 and Rule 2(S) and (7) of the Rules
of 1963 shows that minerals need not be subterranean
and that mining operations cover every operation
undertaken for the purpose of "Winning" any minor
mineral. "Winning" does not imply a hazardous or
perilous activity. The word simply means extracting a
mineral" and is used generally to indicate,- any
activity by which a mineral is secured. "Extracting" in
turn means drawing out or obtaining. A tooth is
’extracted’ as much as the fruit juice and as much as a
mineral. Only that the effort varies from tooth to
tooth, from fruit to fruit and from mineral to
mineral".
We may also refer to Northern Pacific Railway Company
v. John A. Sodrberg(2) where the Supreme Court of United
States observed as follows (at page 581):
"The word ’mineral’ is used in so many senses,
dependant upon the context, that the ordinary
definitions of the dictionary throw but little light
upon its significance in a
(1) [1976] 3 S.C.R. 869. (2) 47 L. Fd.575
274
given case. Thus, the scientific division of all matter
into the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom would be
absurd as applied to a grant of lands, since all lands
belong to the mineral kingdom, and therefore, could not
be excepted from the grant without being destructive of
it. Upon the other hand, a definition which would
confine it to the precious metals-gold and silver-would
so limit its application as to destroy at once half the
value of the exception. Equally subversive of the grant
would be the definition of minerals found in the
Century Dictionary: as "any constituent of the earth’s
crust" ; and that of Beinbridge on Mines: "All the Sub-
stances stances that now form, or which once formed, a
part of the solid body of the earth". Nor do we
approximate much more closely to the meaning of the
word by treating minerals as substances which are
""mined"" as distinguished from those are "quarried",
since many valuable deposits of gold, copper, iron, and
coal lie upon or near the surface of the earth, and
some of the most valuable building stone, such for
instance, as the Caen stone in France, is excavated
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
from mines running far beneath the surface. This
distinction between under ground mines and open
workings was expressly repudiated in Midland C. v.
Haunchwood Brick & Tile Co. (L.R 20 Ch. Div. 552) and
in Hext v. Gill (L.R. 7 Ch. 699)"
The Supreme Court of United States also referred to
several English cases where stone for road making or paving
was held to be ’minerals’ as also granite, sandstone, flint
stone, gravel, marble, fire clay, brick clay, and the like.
It is clear that the word ’mineral’ has no fixed but a
contextual connotation.
The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our
attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Todd
Birleston and Co. v. The North Eastern Railway Co.(l) and to
Stoud’s Judicial Dictionary to urge that clay, brick-earth
and the like have sometimes been held not to be minerals by
English Courts. As we said earlier the word mineral is an
elastic word whose meaning depends upon the setting in which
it is used. For instance, in the case cited, the question
was whether clay forming the surface or subsoil, and
constituting the "land" compulsorily taken for the purposes
of a railway, was not a mineral WITH the meaning of Sections
77, 78 or 79 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. The
answer was that ’clay’ was not a mineral for
the purposes of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. Any
other conclusion, in the context of the Act, would have led
to the absurd
(1) [1903] I K.B. 603 .
275
result that the original owner whose land had been taken
would be entitled to dig and take away the clay from the
land on which the Railway was constructed, thus defeating
the very object of the compulsory taking. On the other hand,
as noticed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in
several English cases clay, gravel, sand, stone etc. has
been held to be minerals. That is why we say the word
mineral has no definite meaning but has a variety of
meanings, depending on the context of its use. In the
context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development)
Act, we have no‘ doubt that the word ’mineral’ is of
sufficient amplitude to include ’brick-earth’. As already
observed y us, if the expression ’minor mineral’ as defined
in the Act includes ’ordinary clay’ and ’ordinary sand’.
there is no earthly reason why ’brick-earth’ should not be
held to be ’any other mineral’ which may be declared as
’minor mineral.. We do not think it necessary to pursue the
matter further except to say that this was The view taken in
Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar(l) Amar Singh Modilal v. State
of Haryana(2) and Sharma & Co. v. State of U.P.(3). We do
not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State
of West Bengal v. Jagadamba Prasad (4) that because speaks
of ’ordinary earth’ as a mineral it is not a minor mineral
as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &
Development) Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with
costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed
(1) A.I.R 1965 Patna 491
(2) A.I.R 1972 Punj. & Har. 356
(3) A.I.R.. 1975 All. 86. .
(4) A.I.R.. 1969 Cal. 2XI.
276