State of Punjab & Ors. vs. M/s. Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 10687-10694 of 2013
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. M/s. Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner [Civil Appeal Nos. 10687-10694 of 2013, decided January 21, 2025; 2025 INSC 88] resolved a longstanding dispute regarding the State’s authority to levy royalty on the excavation of brick earth, a minor mineral, used by brick kiln operators.
Facts and Background
Brick kiln owners (respondents) had leased land from private owners to excavate brick earth for brick manufacturing. They challenged the State of Punjab’s demand for royalty, arguing that since the land and the brick earth belonged to private parties, and not the State, the government had no right to levy royalty. They relied on Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and contended that neither the Mines and Mineral (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 nor the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, authorized such a levy in the absence of State ownership. The trial court and first appellate court ruled in favor of the State, but the High Court decreed the suits in favor of the brick kiln owners, holding that mere declaration of brick earth as a minor mineral did not vest rights in the State to levy royalty.
Legal Issues
Whether the State Government can levy royalty on brick earth excavated from privately owned land, solely on the basis that brick earth is declared a minor mineral.
Whether ownership of the land or mineral is necessary for the State to exercise the power to levy royalty under the relevant mining laws.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the right to levy royalty on the excavation of minor minerals like brick earth is conferred on the State by statute and is not dependent on land or mineral ownership. The Court clarified that the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, empower the State to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals, including brick earth, irrespective of whether the mineral is excavated from government or private land.
The Court emphasized that the three lower courts had unnecessarily delved into the issue of ownership, which was irrelevant to the statutory right to levy royalty. The only relevant question was whether brick earth had been declared a minor mineral under the law, which it had. Thus, the State’s power to levy royalty was upheld as a matter of statutory authority, not ownership.
Conclusion
The State Government is legally entitled to levy royalty on the excavation and use of brick earth as a minor mineral, regardless of land ownership.
The statutory right to levy royalty under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, is not contingent on the State owning the land or the mineral.
The Supreme Court restored the State’s authority to assess and recover royalty from brick kiln operators for brick earth excavation, quashing the High Court’s contrary ruling.
RELATED Blog
0 comments