STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. M/S OM PRAKASH BRICK KILN OWNER, ETC (2025 INSC 88)

BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS:

The respondents, who operated brick kilns, filed suits against the appellants (State Government) seeking a permanent injunction to prevent them from levying or recovering royalty for using earth to make bricks. The respondents argued that they leased private land and that brick earth was not owned by the State as per the Wajib-ul-arz and Section 42(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. They also contended that neither the Mines and Mineral (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, nor the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, authorized the State Government to levy royalty on brick earth. The appellants, in defense, argued that brick earth was classified as a minor mineral, and under Section 15 of the 1957 Act, they had the power to make rules for charging royalty.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the land records before 1871 presumed ownership of quarries, including brick earth, to be with the State. The decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court, which ruled that the absence of explicit mention of brick earth in Wajib-ul-arz did not negate the State’s right to impose royalty. However, the High Court, in the second appeal, ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that merely declaring brick earth as a minor mineral did not establish the State’s ownership, and without proving ownership, the State could not levy royalty.

ISSUES:

The main issue in this case revolved around the status of bricks under the statutory provision in India i.e whether it can be classified as a minor mineral under the Mineral Rules. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court ruled that, the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2007 of the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside, and the decrees of the dismissal of suits passed by the Trial Court are restored.

The Bench observed that in 1958, the Government of India, through a notification under Section 3(e) of the 1957 Act, classified brick earth as a minor mineral. It noted that the High Court overlooked the core issue, as the respondents were not the owners of the disputed land, and the actual owners were not parties to the suit. Furthermore, neither the Trial Court nor the District Court framed any issue regarding the ownership of the land in question.

Citing Rules 54A, 54B, and 54C of the Mineral Rules, the Bench emphasized that even landowners cannot undertake quarrying or mining without obtaining a certificate of approval in Form “B.” Such certificate holders are required to report the production and disposal of minerals, with royalty determined under Rule 54C. Since brick earth was recognized as a minor mineral, the State Government had the authority to levy royalty, and any challenge to this assessment could be addressed through an appeal under Rule 54F. Consequently, the ownership of the land was deemed irrelevant, as the landowners did not fall within the exempted category under Rule 3 of the Mineral Rules. Concluding that the respondents had no valid claim for a permanent injunction against the State’s recovery of royalty, the Bench allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment while affirming that disputes over royalty amounts could be addressed through the appellate mechanism under Rule 54F.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirmed the State Government’s authority to impose royalty on the extraction of brick earth by recognizing it as a minor mineral under Section 3(e) of the 1957 Act. The Court emphasized that statutory classification, rather than land ownership, determines whether royalty can be levied. By interpreting Rules 54A, 54B, and 54C of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, the Court clarified that even landowners must obtain a certificate of approval before conducting mining or quarrying operations. This ruling ensures that regulatory compliance remains the key factor in mineral extraction, rather than property rights. Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out procedural errors in the High Court’s ruling, highlighting that the issue of land ownership was never framed in the lower courts, making the High Court’s decision legally flawed.

The judgment sets an important precedent for minor mineral regulation in India by strengthening the government’s power to impose royalty and ensuring a uniform application of mineral laws. It also underscores the principle that disputes over royalty amounts should be addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism under Rule 54F before seeking judicial intervention. This approach discourages unnecessary litigation and reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks. By prioritizing regulatory compliance over ownership disputes, the ruling helps streamline the legal treatment of minor minerals and ensures that all mineral extraction activities remain within the purview of government regulations.