http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BANARSI DASS CHADHA & BROS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: L.T. GOVERNOR, DELHI ADMN. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1978

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1587            1979 SCR  (1) 271  1978 SCC  (4)  11

ACT:      Mines and  Minerals (Regulation  and Development)  Act, 1957, S.  3(e)-Brick-earth. whether  a minor mineral. within the meaning  of that  expression ’Minor Mineral’, as defined in s. 3(e).

HEADNOTE:      S. 3(e)  of  the  Mines  and  Mineral  (Regulation  and Development) Act,  1957 defines  "’Minor Mineral’ as meaning building stones,  gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand  used  for  prescribed  purposes,  and  any  other mineral which the Central Government may, by Notification in the official  Gazette declare  to be  a minor  mineral".  In exercise of  the power  conferred by  s. 3(e) of the Act the Central Government  declared  inter-alia  brick-earth  as  a ’minor mineral’.      Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court ^      HELD: (  I )  The word  ’mineral’ has  no fixed  but  a contextual connotation. If ’mineral’ is not a term of art it is a  word of  common parlance,  capable of  multiplicity of meanings  depending   upon  the   context.   The   word   is occasionally used  in  a  very  wide  sense  to  denote  any substance that  neither animal nor vegetable Sometimes it is used in  a narrow sense to mean no more than precious metals like gold  and silver.  Again the  word ’minerals’  is often used to  indicate substances  obtained from  underneath  the surface of  the earth  by digging or quarrying. though it is not always so. [273 A-C, 274 F]      In the  context of  the ’Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)  Act, the  word Mineral  is  of  sufficient amplitude to  include brick-earth.  If the expression ’minor mineral’ as defined in the Act, includes ’ordinary clay‘ and ’ordinary sand’.  there is no earthly reason why brick-earth should not  be held  to be ’any other mineral’ which may, be declared as a ’minor mineral’. [1275 B-C]      Bhagwan Das  v. State.  Of  U.P.,  [1976]  3  SCR  869, applied      Laddu Mal  v. State  of Bihar,  AIR 1965 Pat. 491; Amar Modilal Singh  v. State  of Haryana,  AIR  1972  Punjab  and Haryana 356;  Sharma &  Co. v.  State of U.P., AIR 1975 All.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

386 approved.      State of  West Bengal v. Jagdamba Prasad, AIR 1969 Cal. 281; overruled.      Todd Birleston  & Co. v. The North Eastern Railway Co., [1903] I K.B. 603; quoted with approval.      (2) A  substance must  first be a mineral before it can be notified  as a minor mineral pursuant to the power vested in the  Central Government  under s. 3(e) of the Act. Brick- earth being  a mineral. the Central Government has correctly notified it as a ’minor mineral’. [272 G-H] 272

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1 278 of 1978.      Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order 15- 11-1976 of  the Delhi  High Court  in Civil  Writ No.  96 of 1971.      B. Dutta for the Appellant.      Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. General and R. N. Sachthey for Respondents 1 and 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-We granted special leave and heard arguments on the limited question whether "brick-earth" is a ’minor mineral’  within the  meaning of  that expression  as defined  in   Section  3  (e)  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals (Regulation and Development’) Act. 1957.      The definition is as follows:           "Minor mineral’  means  building  stones,  gravel?      ordinary clay,  ordinary sand  other than sand used for      prescribed purposes,  and any  other mineral  which the      Central Government may, by Notification in the official      Gazette declare to be minor mineral ;" In exercise  of the  power conferred  by Section 3(e) of the Act, the  Central Government declared the following minerals to be minor minerals           "Boulder, Shingle,  Chalcedony  pebbles  used  for      ball mill purposes only, limeshell kanker and limestone      used for  lime burning,  murrum, brick-earth,  fuller’s      earth, bentonite road metal, reh-matti, slate and shale      when used for building material;"      The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that  a substance had to be a mineral before it could be notified as  a minor  mineral pursuant  to the  power  under Section 3(e)  of the  Miens  and  Minerals  (Regulation  and Development) Act,  1957. He urged that brick-earth was not a mineral and,  therefore, it  could not  be notified  a minor mineral.      We agree with the learned Counsel that a substance must first be  a mineral  before it  can be  notified as  a minor mineral  pursuant   to  the  power  vested  in  the  Central Government under  Section 3(e)  of the  Act.  The  question, therefore,  is   whether  brick-earth   is  a  mineral.  The expression  "Minor  Mineral"  as  defined  in  Section  3(e) includes  ’ordinary   clay’  and  ’ordinary  sand’.  If  the expression "minor mineral" as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act includes ’ordinary clay’ and 273      ‘ordinary sand’,  there is no reason why earth used for the purpose  A of  making bricks  should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word "any other mineral" which may be declared as a "minor mineral" by the Government. The word "mineral" is  not a  term of  art. It  is a  word of  common

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

parlance, capable  of a  multiplicity of  meaning  depending upon the context. For example the word is  occasionally used in a very wide sense to denote any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable. Sometimes it is used in a narrow sense to mean  no more than precious metalls like gold and silver. Again,  the  word  "minerals"  is  often  used  to  indicate substances obtain-  . ed  from underneath the surface of the earth by  digging or quarrying. But this is not always so as pointed out  by Chandrachud,  J (as  he then was) in Bhagwan Dass v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh,(1) where the learned judge said (at p. 874):           ’It  was  urged  that  the  sand  and  gravel  are      deposited on  the surface of the land and not under the      surface of the soil and therefore they cannot be called      minerals and  equally so,  any operation  by which they      are collected  or gathered  cannot properly be called a      minerals operation.  It is  in the first place wrong to      assume that  mines and minerals must always be sub-soil      and that there can be no minerals on the surface of the      earth. Such  an  assumption  is  contrary  to  informed      experience. In  any  case,  the  definition  of  mining      operations and  minor minerals  in section 3(d) and (e)      of the  Act of  1957 and Rule 2(S) and (7) of the Rules      of 1963  shows that  minerals need  not be subterranean      and  that   mining  operations  cover  every  operation      undertaken for  the  purpose  of  "Winning"  any  minor      mineral.  "Winning"  does  not  imply  a  hazardous  or      perilous activity.  The word  simply means extracting a      mineral"  and  is  used  generally  to  indicate,-  any      activity by which a mineral is secured. "Extracting" in      turn  means  drawing  out  or  obtaining.  A  tooth  is      ’extracted’ as much as the fruit juice and as much as a      mineral. Only  that the  effort varies  from  tooth  to      tooth,  from   fruit  to  fruit  and  from  mineral  to      mineral".      We may  also refer  to Northern Pacific Railway Company v. John  A. Sodrberg(2)  where the  Supreme Court  of United States observed as follows (at page 581):           "The word  ’mineral’ is  used in  so many  senses,      dependant  upon   the  context,   that   the   ordinary      definitions of  the dictionary  throw but  little light      upon its significance in a (1) [1976] 3 S.C.R. 869.                    (2) 47 L. Fd.575 274      given case. Thus, the scientific division of all matter      into the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom would be      absurd as  applied to a grant of lands, since all lands      belong to the mineral kingdom, and therefore, could not      be excepted from the grant without being destructive of      it. Upon  the other  hand,  a  definition  which  would      confine it to the precious metals-gold and silver-would      so limit its application as to destroy at once half the      value of the exception. Equally subversive of the grant      would be  the  definition  of  minerals  found  in  the      Century Dictionary:  as "any constituent of the earth’s      crust" ; and that of Beinbridge on Mines: "All the Sub-      stances stances  that now form, or which once formed, a      part of  the solid  body  of  the  earth".  Nor  do  we      approximate much  more closely  to the  meaning of  the      word by  treating  minerals  as  substances  which  are      ""mined"" as  distinguished from  those are "quarried",      since many valuable deposits of gold, copper, iron, and      coal lie  upon or  near the  surface of  the earth, and      some of  the most  valuable building  stone,  such  for      instance, as  the Caen  stone in  France, is  excavated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    from  mines  running  far  beneath  the  surface.  This      distinction  between   under  ground   mines  and  open      workings was  expressly repudiated  in  Midland  C.  v.      Haunchwood Brick  & Tile  Co. (L.R 20 Ch. Div. 552) and      in Hext v. Gill (L.R. 7 Ch. 699)"      The Supreme  Court of  United States  also referred  to several English  cases where stone for road making or paving was held  to be ’minerals’ as also granite, sandstone, flint stone, gravel,  marble, fire clay, brick clay, and the like. It is  clear that  the word  ’mineral’ has  no fixed  but  a contextual connotation.      The learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  invited  our attention to  the decision  of the  Court of  Appeal in Todd Birleston and Co. v. The North Eastern Railway Co.(l) and to Stoud’s Judicial  Dictionary to  urge that clay, brick-earth and the  like have sometimes been held not to be minerals by English Courts.  As we  said earlier  the word mineral is an elastic word whose meaning depends upon the setting in which it is  used. For  instance, in  the case cited, the question was  whether  clay  forming  the  surface  or  subsoil,  and constituting the  "land" compulsorily taken for the purposes of a railway, was not a mineral WITH the meaning of Sections 77, 78  or 79  of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. The answer was that ’clay’ was not a mineral for  the  purposes of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. Any other conclusion,  in the context of the Act, would have led to the absurd (1) [1903] I K.B. 603 . 275 result that  the original  owner whose  land had  been taken would be  entitled to  dig and  take away  the clay from the land on  which the  Railway was  constructed, thus defeating the very object of the compulsory taking. On the other hand, as noticed  by the  Supreme Court  of the  United States, in several English  cases clay,  gravel, sand,  stone etc.  has been held  to be  minerals. That  is why  we  say  the  word mineral has  no  definite  meaning  but  has  a  variety  of meanings, depending  on the  context  of  its  use.  In  the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, we  have no‘  doubt  that  the  word  ’mineral’  is  of sufficient amplitude  to include  ’brick-earth’. As  already observed y  us, if the expression ’minor mineral’ as defined in the  Act includes  ’ordinary clay’  and ’ordinary  sand’. there is  no earthly  reason why ’brick-earth’ should not be held to  be ’any  other mineral’  which may  be declared  as ’minor mineral..  We do not think it necessary to pursue the matter further except to say that this was The view taken in Laddu Mal  v. State  of Bihar(l) Amar Singh Modilal v. State of Haryana(2)  and Sharma  & Co.  v. State of U.P.(3). We do not agree  with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of West  Bengal v.  Jagadamba Prasad (4) that because speaks of ’ordinary  earth’ as  a mineral it is not a minor mineral as  defined   in  the   Mines  and  Minerals  (Regulation  & Development) Act.  The appeal  is accordingly dismissed with costs. S.R.                                        Appeal dismissed (1) A.I.R 1965 Patna 491 (2) A.I.R 1972 Punj. & Har. 356 (3) A.I.R.. 1975 All. 86. . (4) A.I.R.. 1969 Cal. 2XI. 276