Sub soil Rights

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4540-4548 OF 2000 Threesiamma Jacob & Ors. … Appellants Versus Geologist, Dptt. of Mining & Geology & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Chelameswar, J. 1. These appeals are placed before us pursuant to the Order dated 8th December, 2004 of a Division Bench of this Court which opined that the points involved in these and certain other appeals “need to be decided by a three Judge Bench.”
Attachments:
Access this URL (http://www.samataindia.org.in/mici/micidocuments/Subsoilrights_SC_2013.pdf)Sub soil[ ]381 Kb

Deepak Kumar etc. Vs State of Haryana and Others

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19628-19629 OF 2009

Deepak Kumar etc. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Keyword: Minor Mineral, Environment Clearance, auction

 

The backdrop of this case relates to minor minerals in the State of Haryana. Like any other state, minor minerals or commonly known as river bed minerals like sand, bajri, stones etc. are auctioned or given on quarry lease for short terms. These are large in numbers and states are the sole decision makers in terms of minor minerals. The EIA notification, 2006 stipulates categorization of projects into Category A and B but the minimum threshold for inclusion of a project to go through environment clearance is >5 hectares. With most of the minor mineral leases less than 5 hectares, environment clearance is not required by these mines but if one looks at it cumulatively, there could be a series of such mines which are contiguous but fragmented for avoiding going through environment clearance process. The court ordered that ‘leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States / Union Territories only after getting environment clearance from the MoEF.’

Date of Judgment: February 27, 2012

Read Judgment

Jagpal Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 /2011 @ SLP(C) No.3109/2011

Jagpal Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Keywords: Common Land, Village Pond

The case pertains to a situation where village pond (commons) was being encroached upon for construction activities in the State of Punjab. The court underlined the fact that even if the vesting of the property with the state did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. The court also made it clear that regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases like where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of SC / STs or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

Date of Judgment: January 28, 2011

Read Judgment

Read Rajasthan Governments Resolution

Additional information