M. H. Beg, J. - (1.) The seventeen appeals before us by the State and by the Director of Industries of Haryana, after certification under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) of the Constitution, are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on Writ Petitions of owners of lands and lessees of mineral rights in land seeking reliefs in the nature of Mandamus to enforce fundamental rights conferred by Article 31 (2) and to restrain the Government of Haryana from taking any action to implement two notifications:(i) No. 1217-2-1-B-II-74/7622 dated the 20th February 1974; and, (ii) No. GIG/SP/Auc/1173/3075-C dated the 22nd February, 1974, after declaring void the Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Haryana Act').
(2.) Under the notification of 20th February, 1974, the State Government purported to acquire rights to Saltpetre, a minor mineral, in the land described in a schedule appended to the notification issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 3, sub-section (i) of the Haryana Act. By the notification of 22nd February, 1974, the State Govt. announced to the general public that certain saltpetre bearing areas in the State of Haryana, mentioned therein, would be auctioned on the dates given there. The notifications have not been placed before us. But, from the averments in the statements on behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents in the affidavits supporting their respective cases in proceedings for a stay of the operation of the High Court's judgment, it appears that the intention of the State was to acquire Saltpetre deposits in lands whose owners had granted mining leases claimed by petitioners in the High Court to be subsisting. The auctions advertised were probably of fresh lessee rights. Whether the auctions were to be of ownership or lessee rights in lands, the result was that one owner or one lessee was to be substituted by another in each case as a result of acquisition and sale. The State was to get the difference between the price of acquisition and amount realised on sale of each part sold. The apparent effect of mere change of owners or lessees was that the State of Haryana would benefit financially from the acquisitions and sales, although the object of the Haryana Act was said to include conservation as well as "scientific exploitation" of mineral resources. The case of the appellant State also seemed to be that the owners of lands had "haphazardly" created lessee rights in contravention of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1954, made under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act 67 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). Learned Counsel for the appellant State contended that the Haryana Act was only meant to supplement and not supplant the Central Act. The State claimed to be dealing with lessee rights under the Central Act and not under the Haryana Act at all.
(3.) The case of the petitioners in the High Court was: Firstly, that the Haryana Act was beyond the competence of the State Legislature inasmuch as the field on which this Act operated was necessarily occupied already by the provisions of the Central Act enacted under entry No. 54 of th Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads as follows: "54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." Secondly, that the purported acquisition under the Haryana Act offended the provisions of Article 31 (2) inasmuch as it was neither for a public purpose nor for adequate compensation, the provision for compensation in the Act being, according to the petitioners, illusory.;