Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner has claimed.that he was the owner of the plots of land described in paragraph 2 of the petition and that he was manufacturing bricks by using ordinary earth dug from the said plots of land. He has challenged the authority of the respondents to demand payment of royalty and damages for extraction of brick earth from the said lands for the year 1974 on the grounds mentioned hereinafter.
(2.) At the outset I may record that Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, has not disputed that the earth excavated by the petitioner was a minor mineral within the meaning of clause (e) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner has not also disputed that he had been extracting and removing from the plots in question earth for manufacturing bricks intended for sale. Mr. Mitra has submitted that the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Chinsurah, respondent No. 3, had no authority to impose royalty or fee for damages upon the petitioner. He has secondly submitted that the assessment of damages by the Additional District Magistrate while hearing a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the assessment of royalty was illegal. Mr. Mitra has also submitted that the instant case was covered by Rule 31 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 and the petitioner was not liable to pay any royalty for bricks manufactured with the earth excavated from the lands allegedly owned by himself. Mr. Mitra has also submitted that Rules 24 and 25 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 were ultra vires section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act, 1957. Therefore, the State Government or its officers had no authority to grant quarry permits or to demand royalty as a consideration for granting such permits.
(3.) The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the case. They have also produced the original records relating to the imposition of royalty and the fee for damages upon the petitioner for excavating earth for manufacture of bricks in the year 1974. The petitioner has not also disputed that he had applied in Form 'G' annexed to the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 for the grant of a quarry permit for excavating brick earth from the aforesaid lands on 25th February, 1975. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 empowers the district authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government to grant as per procedure laid down in Schedule 3 quarry permits in From 'F' to any person to extract or remove from any specified land within the limits of his jurisdiction any mineral on pre-payment of royalty. Rule 25 of the said Rules provides that an application for a quarry permit is to be submitted to the District Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government in Form 'G'. The expression "'district authority" has been defined in Rule 3(b) of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 as meaning the Additional District Magistrate and the other officers, specified therein. Schedule 3 to the said Rules of 1973 contains the detailed procedure for the issue of the quarry permits. In the instant case the royalty exceeded Rs. 200/. Therefore, neither the Junior Land Reforms Officer nor the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer under Rule 2 of Schedule 3 was empowered to issue the quarry permits. The Additional District Magistrate as the district authority under Rule 3 was vested with the power to issue the quarry permits and to impose royalty. Rule 5 of the Schedule 3 expressly provides that the issuing authority shall arrange for occasional inspection and check up of the amount of the mineral removed. The district authority under Rule 9 of Schedule 3 has been enjoined to adopt any procedure or delegate so much of his powers to such officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of better administration, revenue collection and less loss due to unauthorised workings subject to future directions of the Government. In view of the express provisions contained in Schedule 3 of the the Rules of 1973, I reject the extreme contention of Mr. Mitra that the Junior Land Reforms Officer was not authorised at all to issue the quarry permits under the said Rules. Presumably, the attention of the learned Judges who disposed of the unreported case placed before me (1) (C.R. nos 2037-38 (W) of 1978 disposed of by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. on 12th April, 1978 and C.R. No. 4928 (W) of 1972, disposed of by Debiprasad Pal, J. on the 7th September, 1973) had no occasion to consider Schedule 3 which, as I have pointed out, prescribes that the district authority may authorise the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer and the Junior Land Reforms Officer or the equivalent officers to issue quarry permits subject to pecuniary limits specified in Rule 3 of Schedule 3 of the Rules of 1973. Further, in the instant case, the royalty was for a sum exceeding Rs. 200/-. Therefore, in the instant case the Addl. District Magistrate was the competent authority.;