Kamal Narain Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioners are bhumidhars and sirdars of a number of plots mentioned in the petition situate in village Mustafabad Munkisma Kachhar, Pargana Chail, within the Municipal Limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The petitioners were the erstwhile zamindars of the land in question which was their sir and khudkasht. After the enforcement of UP Urban Areas ZA and LR Act, 1956 they acquired bhumidhari and sirdari rights. The land in question is situate in the bed of river Ganga. During rainy season their land is submerged under water. When the water recedes, a lot of sand is left over on the petitioners' land. The Collector, Allahabad granted mining lease to Badri Prasad, opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 2600/ - under the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the validity of the said Rules and have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Collector not to grant any mining lease in respect of the petitioners' land to any one else for digging and removing sand. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the sand deposited on the petitioners' land belongs to them and the Collector had no right or authority in law to grant any mining lease to lease out the same to any other person without their consent as the grant of mining lease interfered with their property rights. Sand has been declared a minor mineral u/S. 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. S. 15 of that Act confers powers on State Govt. to make rules in respect of minor minerals. In exercise of its powers u/S. 15 of the said Act the State Govt. of UP has framed rules known as UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Sand has been declared a minor mineral under these rules also. These rules make detailed provision for the grant of mining lease and for other allied matters. There is no dispute that mining lease can be granted by the Collector under these Rules only when the right or title to the mineral vests in the State. If the mineral does not vest in the State and if a citizen is its absolute owner no lease can be granted by the State or by the Collector for carrying on mining operations in respect of that land or mineral. The petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners of the sand in question and the State has no right or interest therein; this contention has to be examined.
(2.) The UP Urban Areas ZA and LR Act 1956 was enforced in the area where the petitioners' land is situate. There is no dispute on this question. U/S. 10 of that Act, all rights, title and interest of the petitioners, who were intermediaries of the land in question, including their rights in mines and minerals ceased and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. By S. 12 of the UP Urban Areas ZA and LR Act, 1956 provisions contained in Ch. VI of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 have been made applicable to mines and minerals acquired under that Act. The provisions contained in Ch. VI of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 are, therefore, applicable to the petitioners' land. U/S. 106 of 1950 Act working mines to extract minerals from any land is required to be in accordance with the provisions contained in Ch. VI of that Act. S. 107 of that Act provides that if on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting an intermediary was directly working on a mine and if he desired to continue the operations for extracting minerals, the same shall be deemed to have been leased out by the State Govt. to that intermediary, and then such intermediary was entitled to retain possession of those mines as a lessee thereof. The State Govt. was, however, empowered to place terms and conditions on the right of that intermediary to regulate mining operations. The provisions contained in the U.P. Urban Areas ZA & LR Act, 1956 and the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 make it amply clear that after the enforcement of those Acts an intermediary has got no right or title over any mineral which may be found beneath or over the soil of his land. In view of the provisions of the aforesaid two Acts it is difficult to accept petitioners' claim that they are owners of the sand which is admittedly a mineral. There is no assertion in the petition that the petitioners were directly carrying on any mining operations on the plots in question on the date of vesting, they are, therefore, not entitled to carry on any mining operations on the land in question, and the sand which is found on the petitioners' land vests in the State and the petitioners have no right, title or interest in that mineral.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahant Ashok Prapanna Sharma v/s. State of U.P. (Sp. A. No. 967 of 1969 d/ - 14 -9 -1970) in support of his contention that the sand found on the petitioners' land was not a mineral and that the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules were not applicable and, as such, the Collector had no authority to grant any mining lease in respect of the sand found on the petitioners' land to any other person. The Division Bench in the case of Mahant Ashok Prapanna Sharma held that having regard to the past history and the facts of that case (of Mahant Ashok Prapanna Sharma) the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules did not apply. In the opinion of their Lordships the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules applied to the areas which vest in the State Govt. It was conceded before the Division Bench that the provisions of the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 were not applicable to the land involved in that case, therefore, the mineral rights had never vested in the State Govt. It was under these circumstances that the Bench held that the Mineral Concession Rules were not applicable in respect of the sand found on the land belonging to Ashok Prapanna Sharma. The judgment of the Division Bench does not lend any support to the petitioner's case. In the present case it is the admitted case of the parties that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Areas ZA & LR Act, 1956 have been enforced in the area where the land in question is situate. On the issue of notification u/S. 8 of that Act all mineral rights have vested in the State Govt., and sand being a minor mineral, found on the petitioners' land, does not belong to them. It vests in the State and the State alone is its owner. The Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 would, therefore, apply to the present case. As already observed, the petitioners themselves are not entitled to carry on mining operations, to dig and remove the sand as they have no right to do so under the law. The Collector is entitled to grant mining lease for digging and taking away sand found on the petitioners' land under the provisions of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.;