Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the mines and minerals development and regulation amendment act 2015 Court: himachal pradesh

Aug 09 2005 (HC)

Kalyan Singh and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(1)ShimLC41

..... of the provisions of rule 24a(6) of the 1960 rules and the lease holder respondent company is entitled to the renewal of the mining lease under sections 8(2) and 8(3) of mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 (mines act for short) read with rule 24a and 24(b) of the 1960 rules.it is not disputed that the petitioners are the joint owners ..... though earlier was owned by the land owners of shiva rudana estate jointly but vested in the state government under the '1974 act'. the remaining 15.5 bighas of land is owned by individual owners. however, by an amendment act of 2001, the proprietary rights in the village common land earlier vested in the state government were re-vested with the land owners ..... . the state government in its return has taken the stand that the government has only returned the surface rights of the shamlat land vested in the state, by the amendment of 1974 act, to the erstwhile owners and the private owners at the most are only entitled to compensation which can be either mutually agreed upon or may be determined by the ..... . the respondent company also plead that they operate the mines scientifically in accordance with approved mining scheme/plan and complying with all the environmental and other related laws. according to the respondent company, the petitioners have no right either to the land in question or to the minerals therein even after the amendment of 1974 act in the year 2001. it is though not disputed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2007 (HC)

The A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC420

..... relation to entry no. 54 list i of the 7th schedule to the constitution of india. this relates to regulation of mines and mineral development. no doubt, royalty is charged under section 9 of this act. however, the royalty is charged for the removal of the minerals from the leased area. the tax imposed by the state is a tax on the carriage of goods within ..... . as far as the first contention is concerned, admittedly prior to the amendment, item no. 16(d) of schedule i of the act read as 'minor minerals'. at that time the challenge of the petitioner was that since coal is not a minor mineral and is a major mineral falling within the ambit of the mines act, the same could not be treated to be a minor ..... can be levied at the rate prescribed therein on all minerals (excluding barytes, shale and rock salt). therefore, the generic term 'mineral' will include both 'minor and major minerals'. this also appears to be the intention of the legislature when it amended the schedule and deleted the word minor. if the intention had been otherwise, there was no ..... mineral. it was thereafter that the schedule to the act was amended and the word minor was removed. the schedule as it now reads provides that the tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1974 (HC)

Bal Krishan Vaid Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... and no relief can be granted in its absence. (3) the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision to the central government under section 30 of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957 and there is no reason why he should avail of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution. (4) the case involves disputed questions ..... clause 30 contemplates a notice of thirty days from the date of communication of the notice and mot from the date of its issue. (c) section 4a (2) of the act, as amended in 1972, cannot be invoked by the himachal pradesh government as an alternative in support of the termination of the contract, because (i) section 14 of the ..... act excludes its operation, (ii) it applies to a mining lease and not to a contract; and (iii) the condition precedent set out therein has not been satisfied. (d) the termination of the contract has ..... objection is that instead of applying by way of writ petition the petitioner should have applied in revision to the central government under section 30 of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act. section 30 of the act empowers the central government to revise any order made by the state government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //