Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964

3 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S OM PRAKASH BRICK KILN OWNER, ETC.

2025 INSC 8821 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab sought to levy royalty on brick earth excavated by private brick‑kiln operators, who argued that the land and the mineral were privately owned and that the State had no authority to impose such a charge. The lower courts held that, under Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the quarry lands ve

RAM AND SHYAM COMPANYversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1985 INSC 1358 May 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ram & Shyam Co., submitted the highest bid for a minor‑mineral quarry in Haryana, but the State Government, invoking Rule 30(4) of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, declined to confirm the bid and instead awarded the lease to a fourth respondent who had made a secret higher offer to the Chief Mi

M/S. JAI DURGA FINVEST PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 15 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Mish. Jai Durga Finvest Pvt. Ltd. obtained a mining lease for mineral sand in the Bega Murtha zone of Haryana and entered into an agreement containing clauses requiring payment of compensation to land owners (clause 9) and obligating the State to determine such compensation (clause 27). The land owners refused compensa

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search