By Biju Sebastian
A dispute concerning mineral ownership in Kerala may, at first glance, seem like a matter governed only by modern mining laws. But the roots of certain important legal issues concerning the rights to minerals in privately owned lands in Kerala reach back to a system of land ownership that existed centuries ago.
The term Jenmom (Jenmom / Janmam), rarely
heard in ordinary usage today, became a decisive concept in certain important
court verdicts concerning mineral rights.
The reason for this is not that the old
Janmi system continues to exist in the same form today. Rather, it is that
courts have had to examine the nature of the rights in land that existed before
modern land laws, revenue settlements, and mining rules came into being.
Therefore, the history of Janmavakasham
(Janmam right) is not merely a chapter in Kerala’s agricultural past. It is
also important background for understanding the legal disputes relating to
mineral rights in privately owned lands in the erstwhile Malabar region.
In this series, we examine how this
subject developed — starting from the traditional land ownership system in
Malabar, through British revenue administration, judicial interpretations, and
legislative changes.
The erstwhile Malabar region
The State of Kerala was formed on 1
November 1956, following the linguistic reorganisation of states.
Before that, present-day Kerala consisted
of three distinct historical regions:
Travancore, Cochin, Malabar
Travancore and Cochin were princely
states with their own administrative systems and land ownership practices.
But the historical path Malabar followed
was different.
Following the 1792 Treaty of
Seringapatam, Malabar came under the control of the British East India Company.
It was later administered as part of the British Madras Presidency.
This historical difference is very
significant.
The land ownership practices that
developed in Travancore and Cochin were different from those that prevailed in
Malabar.
For this reason, many of the legal
disputes relating to Janmam rights are particularly connected to the historical
Malabar region.
The term “erstwhile Malabar region,” used
in court judgments and government records, refers to the historical Malabar
region that was administered under the Madras Presidency. It does not refer
merely to a present-day district.
 |
| Malabar District in the Madras Presidency |
Malabar before British rule
The British did not create the land
system of Malabar.
When the East India Company took over
Malabar in 1792, a long-standing social and legal structure governing land
ownership and cultivation already existed there.
Land rights in Malabar had developed over
centuries through customs and local practices.
These were not based solely on registered
documents or legal titles as they are today. They existed through customary
recognition, social institutions, and various rights-relationships connected
with land.
The most important element of this system
was the Janmam system.
But the history of Malabar prior to
British rule was not one of unchanging continuity.
The Mysorean rule that Hyder Ali and Tipu
Sultan extended to Malabar in the eighteenth century caused major political
changes.
Changes occurred in the administrative
system, particularly in the method of revenue collection, during the period of
Mysorean rule.
This period is significant. Because when
the British took over Malabar in 1792, they were not taking over an unchanged
ancient system. Rather, they took over a traditional land system that had
already undergone the administrative changes of the Mysorean period.
The traditional Janmam system
The term Janmam means an
inherited/birthright.
In the traditional land ownership system
of Malabar, Janmam was the highest proprietary right in land.
The person holding this right was called
a Janmi.
A Janmi was not merely a person engaged
in cultivation. The Janmi held the highest land-right interest recognised by
the customary laws of Malabar.
But the land system of Malabar was quite
complex.
Ownership, possession, and cultivation
were often held by different persons.
A Janmi might hold the superior ownership
right in the land.
Another person might hold an intermediate
right such as Kanam.
The actual cultivation might be carried
out by yet another person.
Thus, multiple layers of rights existed
in respect of the same piece of land.
This system cannot be understood using
today’s simplified concepts of land ownership alone.
It was a historical arrangement that
recognised the distinct legal interests of different persons connected with the
same land.
The most important point in the
mineral-rights disputes that arose later is that the Janmi had historically
been recognised as holding the superior proprietary right in the land.
Janmam as a complete proprietary right
The most important feature of the
traditional Janmam system was the nature of the right itself.
Janmam was not a mere leasehold, nor was
it a mere possessory right granted only for the purpose of cultivation. Janmam
right was historically regarded as a superior proprietary right recognised by
the customary laws of Malabar.
The Janmi was considered to hold a
complete ownership interest in the land. However, this right was subject to the
obligations and relationships that existed within the political and social
order of that period.
The relationship of the Janmi with the
ruler was not like the relationship between a tenant and a landowner in today’s
sense.
The Janmi held a right in land that was
hereditarily transmissible. Along with this, the Janmi also had to fulfil
certain customary obligations that were part of the administrative system of
that time.
This distinction became very significant
when the British administration attempted to shape the revenue system of
Malabar in 1792.
Because what the British faced was not
simply a straightforward system of collecting tax from mere cultivators.
They had to reconcile their revenue
system with the Janmi system, which had historically claimed a superior
proprietary interest in land.
Mysorean rule and changes in the
revenue system
Before the British established their rule
in Malabar, this region was for a period under Mysorean rule.
Hyder Ali established power in Malabar in
1766. Later, Malabar continued to be part of Mysorean rule during Tipu Sultan’s
time as well.
After the Third Anglo-Mysore War, Malabar
came under the control of the British East India Company through the 1792
Treaty of Seringapatam.
Certain important changes occurred in
revenue administration during the period of Mysorean rule.
A system came into being that determined
and collected tax more directly, taking into account the extent of land,
cultivation, and revenue potential.
In this system — later resembling what
came to be known as Jamabandi in Indian revenue administration — the
relationship between the government and persons connected with land became more
direct.
But these changes did not eliminate the
traditional Janmam system.
The superior proprietary right that the
Janmi held under Malabar’s customary land system continued.
However, the Mysorean period brought a
new element into the relationship between landholders and the state — namely,
the state’s direct revenue demand and control.
When the British took over Malabar in
1792, they faced a situation composed of two elements:
One — the traditional land rights arising
from the Janmi system.
Two — the new revenue-administration
practices that had developed during the period of Mysorean rule.
This background is very important.
Because the British revenue system was not introduced into a completely
unchanged traditional structure.
The British implemented their
administration in a region where historical land rights and the state’s new
revenue systems were already interacting with each other.
The British arrival of 1792
The 1792 Treaty of Seringapatam was a
decisive turning point in the history of Malabar. After taking over Malabar,
the principal administrative challenge faced by the British East India Company
was organising the revenue system.
What existed in Malabar was:
A complex traditional land system,
multiple types of rights in the same land, the experience of the administrative
changes of the Mysorean period, the need to establish a stable revenue system.
The principal objective of the British
was to determine and collect land revenue.
Before that, what they needed to
understand was:
Who holds the right in the land?
What is the nature of that right?
Who is the person liable to pay revenue?
How should cultivated land and
uncultivated land be distinguished?
These were the questions.
For this purpose, extensive surveys and
settlement operations were begun.
These records were not prepared to
resolve ownership disputes in the modern sense.
Their principal purpose was revenue
administration.
But the nature of the land rights
recorded in them later became historical evidence in legal disputes.
The Ryotwari system in the Madras
Presidency
Ryotwari was the principal land-revenue
system in the Madras Presidency.
This system is particularly associated
with Sir Thomas Munro, who played a major role in developing the
revenue-administration system in South India.
Under the ordinary Ryotwari system,
revenue was assessed by the government approaching directly the farmer or
cultivator (Ryot) who held possession of the land.
Unlike the Zamindari system, where
intermediaries were involved, its distinguishing feature was direct revenue
assessment on the basis of each individual landholding.
The common idea that prevailed in many
Ryotwari areas of the Madras Presidency was:
The government is the paramount owner of
the land.
The farmer or occupant is a recognised
right-holder who pays revenue to the government.
This idea later influenced discussions
concerning the ownership of land and minerals in South India.
But the historical situation of Malabar
was different.
Why Malabar was different
The traditional Janmam system did not
fully conform to the ordinary Ryotwari model.
What the British administrators
understood was that the Janmi was not merely a Ryot cultivating government
land.
Under the customary system of Malabar,
the Janmi held a superior proprietary right in the land.
Therefore, although the British adopted
the administrative mechanism of the Ryotwari method for assessing revenue, they
did not completely eliminate the traditional ownership understanding of
Malabar.
This is the peculiarity of Malabar within
the Ryotwari system.
The method of revenue collection was
Ryotwari.
But the historical understanding of the
right in land was different.
This difference is precisely what later
became very significant in the legal discussions concerning mineral rights.
William Logan and the Malabar land
system
One of the most important British
officials to record the land system of Malabar in detail was William Logan.
He was the Collector of Malabar, and the
book he published in 1887, the Malabar Manual, remains today an important
record for understanding the social, economic, and land-system history of this
region.
Logan studied in detail the traditional
land relationships of Malabar.
He did not regard the position of the
Janmi as that of an ordinary government tenant.
He recognised that the Janmi held a
proprietary interest arising from the historical land system of Malabar.
This is evidence that the British
administrators themselves recognised that Malabar could not be viewed in the
same manner as ordinary Ryotwari areas.
Board Standing Order No. 10
(1888)
The distinction between ordinary Ryotwari
areas and the Janmam lands of Malabar was also reflected in administrative
directions.
Board Standing Order No. 10, issued
by the Madras Board of Revenue in 1888, contained important directions
regarding rights in land and government claims.
The significance of this order lies in
its recognition of the special status of Janmam lands in Malabar.
It was not assumed that ownership of all
land vested in the government merely because the government received revenue.
In Malabar’s Janmam lands, the
proprietary right historically held by the Janmi was recognised.
This was a position different from the
ordinary Ryotwari doctrine.
The importance of settlement records
Extensive documentation took place during
British rule.
Survey records, settlement registers, and
revenue records recorded the following information:
The names of persons in possession of
land, the extent of the land, the nature of the right, the revenue liability,
information relating to the use of the land.
These records were prepared for the
administrative needs of that time.
But over time, they acquired another
significance.
Centuries later, when disputes arose
concerning the ownership of the minerals underlying the land, these old records
became important evidence for understanding the nature of the historical
rights.
The Karimbil Kunhikoman case
Even before reaching the question of
mineral ownership, courts had examined important matters relating to land
rights in Malabar.
One such notable case was:
Karimbil Kunhikoman versus State of
Kerala
(AIR 1962 SC 723 — this case, decided by
the Supreme Court in 1962, formed the basis for several principles that were
later discussed in the Thressiamma Jacob case concerning land rights in
Malabar.)
This case concerned matters relating to
land-reform law and the rights of landowners.
The Court examined the nature of the
rights that existed within the traditional Malabar land system, and the
constitutional limits on legislation affecting them.
The significance of this case lies in the
fact that it showed that historical land rights continued to remain relevant to
legal scrutiny even after modern laws came into force.
What the Court considered was:
Traditional land rights, legal social
reforms, constitutional restrictions
— the relationship between these.
Although this case did not directly
concern mineral ownership, it holds significance in the legal background of the
mineral-rights disputes that arose subsequently.
Download
judgment: Karimbil Kunhikoman vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1961
The Thressiamma Jacob case
The Court history of the case: From
the High Court to the Supreme Court
It should be particularly noted that this
case did not begin directly in the Supreme Court. It has a history of a legal
battle spanning nearly fourteen years.
A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court,
through a common judgment on 2 August 1999, dismissed all the writ petitions
filed by the landowners. The Full Bench held that the minerals beneath the land
belonged to the government, and that royalty must be paid to the government for
quarrying leases.
The landowners appealed against this
judgment to the Supreme Court. Through an order passed on 8 December 2004, a
Division Bench referred the case to a larger Bench, taking the view that the
legal questions involved in these appeals ought to be decided by a three-member
Bench.
Finally, on 8 July 2013, through a
judgment written by Justice Chelameswar, the three-member Bench disposed of
Civil Appeal Nos. 4540–4548/2000 and the connected Civil Appeal
No. 4549/2000. This judgment was reported as (2013) 9 SCC 725 / AIR 2013 SC
3251.
This history is important, because it
shows that the 1999 Full Bench judgment was in favour of the government —
before the landowners’ right was recognised, this was, at the High Court level,
a losing argument. It was by overturning this High Court judgment that the
Supreme Court adopted a position favourable to the landowners.
The decision that brought the history of
Janmam rights in the erstwhile Malabar region to the centre of the discussion
on mineral rights was State of Kerala versus Thressiamma Jacob.
The dispute in this case concerned the
ownership of the minerals underlying privately owned lands in the erstwhile
Malabar region.
The State Government’s argument was that
the minerals belonged to the government.
But the landowners argued, on the basis
of the historical Janmam rights of Malabar, that their proprietary right in the
land extended also to the minerals beneath the land.
The Supreme Court examined in detail the
historical background of the land system of Malabar.
The principal matters considered by the
Court were:
The traditional Janmam system, revenue
records from the British period, the nature of the proprietary rights
recognised in Malabar, the absence of any general legal principle by which all
minerals underlying land could be said to belong automatically to the
government.
The importance of historical records
One of the most important parts of this
judgment was the importance given to historical records.
The Court did not examine this issue by
looking only at modern laws.
Rather, it also examined the historical
background of how land rights in Malabar came to be formed.
The most decisive of these was Board
Standing Order No. 10 (BSO No. 10), issued on 19 March 1888. On the
basis of the historical records available regarding mineral resources in Janmam
lands or in lands held under Ryotwari patta in Malabar, the Court found that
this order provided clear evidence supporting the position that the government
did not claim proprietary rights over the mineral resources in the Janmam lands
of Malabar.
In addition, the Court also examined the
effect of the 1926 re-settlement. The Court held that this re-settlement
neither abolished Janmam estates nor converted them into Ryotwari estates —
that the only difference was that the government called Janmam lands “new
holdings” and privately-held Janmam lands “old holdings.” The basis for this
was that even in government Janmam lands, the Janmi’s share (Janmabhogam)
continued to be recognised.
To reach this conclusion, the Court also
followed the reasoning of its own earlier decision in Balmadies Plantations Ltd
versus State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1972 SC 2240).
After the Thressiamma Jacob judgment
The Thressiamma Jacob judgment brought
about an important legal change.
If private landowners in the erstwhile
Malabar region held rights in the minerals underlying their land, new questions
arose regarding the existing mineral-administration system.
This was no longer merely a historical
matter.
It became a matter connected with:
Legislative policy, constitutional
authority, and protection of property rights.
It was as a continuation of this that the
State later took legislative steps and brought in the Kerala Minerals (Vesting
of Rights) Act, 2021.
Private-vested mineral rights under
the KMMC Rules
To understand the legal changes that
followed, it is necessary to examine the Kerala Mineral Concession Rules
(KMMC).
The Kerala Mineral Concession Rules of
1967 contained specific provisions concerning lands in which mineral rights
vested in private individuals. That is, a specific regulatory mechanism
relating to the mining of minerals in lands where mineral rights vested in
private individuals already existed within the Rules themselves.
Likewise, the KMMC Rules also
specifically addressed lands in which mineral rights vested partly in the
government and partly in private individuals. Separate chapters were included
in the Rules for these two categories.
Later, when the KMMC Rules of 2015 came
into force, the provisions relating to lands in which mineral rights vested in
private individuals, and lands in which mineral rights vested partly in the
government and partly in private individuals, continued.
Therefore, the provisions recognising
mineral rights vested in private individuals did not come into existence only
after the Thressiamma Jacob judgment. They were part of a legal arrangement
that had already existed in the KMMC Rules of 1967 and continued into the 2015
Rules.
Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights)
Ordinance, 2019
After the Thressiamma Jacob judgment, the
State Government sought to change its legal approach regarding mineral rights
vested in private individuals.
It was as part of this that the Kerala
Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Ordinance, 2019 was brought in.
The purpose of this Ordinance was to vest
in the State Government the rights relating to minerals below the surface and
sub-surface of land in specified areas.
This Ordinance was not issued only once.
Between December 2019 and September 2020, it was re-promulgated five times in
succession with similar content.
With this, in place of the legal
arrangement that had existed under the KMMC Rules regarding lands in which
mineral rights vested in private individuals, a new legal framework vesting
mineral rights in the State came into being.
This Ordinance later became the Kerala
Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021.
Removal of the chapters on private
mineral rights from the KMMC Rules
The removal of the chapters in the KMMC
Rules concerning lands in which mineral rights vested in private individuals,
and lands in which mineral rights vested partly in the government and partly in
private individuals, must be understood against this historical background.
This is not to say that provisions
concerning private mineral rights did not exist in the KMMC Rules. Such
provisions existed as far back as the 1967 Rules. They continued in the 2015
Rules as well.
However, after the Vesting of Rights
Ordinance of 2019, the legal approach to mineral rights changed. The specific
chapters in the KMMC Rules concerning lands in which mineral rights vested in
private individuals, and lands in which rights vested partly in the government
and partly in private individuals, were subsequently removed.
This was part of the shift from the
earlier legal arrangement concerning mineral rights vested in private
individuals, to the new legal framework of the Vesting of Rights law, which
vests such rights in the State.
These chapters were removed through the
amendment S.R.O. No. 391/2020, which came into effect on 12 June 2020.
This is a notable timeline — this change was made at the administrative level
during the very same period when the series of Ordinances was still being
continuously renewed — about a year before the 2021 Act was passed into law.
The Mineral Area Development Authority
judgment — Nine-Judge Constitution Bench
During this period, another important
development relating to mineral law also took place in the Supreme Court.
In Mineral Area Development Authority
versus Steel Authority of India Ltd (2024), a nine-judge Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court considered important legal questions relating to mineral
rights and royalty.
This judgment was delivered on 25 July
2024 by the nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, by an
8:1 majority; Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented.
In the Thressiamma Jacob case, the
Supreme Court had accepted the position that the mineral right beneath the
land, along with ownership of the land, would ordinarily vest in the owner of
the land — but the Court had not at that time finally decided the question of
the legal nature of the royalty payable on the basis of such mineral right.
That question was left to be considered by a larger Constitution Bench.
The majority judgment of the nine-judge
Constitution Bench in the Mineral Area Development Authority case made clear
that royalty is not a tax. The most important point here is this: the Court
made clear that royalty is not a tax payable to the government, but rather a
contractual consideration payable by the mining lessee to the lessor who is the
owner of the mineral right. This is a liability arising from the terms of the
mining lease — the amount paid by the lessee to the lessor as consideration for
enjoying the mineral right.
This becomes very important when read
directly together with the Thressiamma Jacob case. In the Thressiamma Jacob
case, the Supreme Court had recognised that Janmam landowners in the erstwhile
Malabar region held ownership of the minerals beneath their land. If, under the
Mineral Area Development Authority judgment, royalty is something that must
accrue to the lessor (that is, the owner of the mineral right), then reading
these two judgments together makes clear: a Janmam landowner is entitled not
merely to the mineral right, but also to the royalty payable when a
quarrying/mining lease is granted on the basis of that right. However, whether
this right has subsequently been vested in the State through any valid
legislation remains a legal question requiring separate examination.
The mere fact that the government has the
power to regulate mining operations does not mean that the mineral right
beneath the land automatically vests in the government. Likewise, even if a
person is recognised as holding a mineral right, that person does not thereby
acquire the right to carry out mining without complying with the necessary
legal permissions and mining rules. Therefore, the ownership of the mineral
right and the State’s power to regulate mining operations must be seen as two
distinct legal questions.
Single Bench judgment on the Vesting
of Rights Act, 2021 — December 2025
The legal position must be understood by
distinguishing between the constitutional validity of the Vesting of Rights
Act, 2021 considered in the Single Bench judgment, the State’s demand for
royalty in connection with past mining, and the power to recover the value of
minerals and penalty in connection with unauthorised mining. The judgment on
the constitutional validity of the Vesting of Rights Act alone cannot determine
the final legal position on all of the State’s demands relating to past mining.
On 19 December 2025, the Single Bench of
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered judgment on various issues, including the
constitutional validity of the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021,
in W.P.(C) No. 36843/2015 and connected petitions. The Court also
considered the legal principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s decision in
Thressiamma Jacob & Ors. v. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology,
Palghat & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 725, concerning mineral rights in privately
owned lands in the erstwhile Malabar region.
The Single Bench upheld the
constitutional validity of the Vesting of Rights Act, 2021. However, the Court
also made clear that, for the period prior to 30 December 2019, the State has
no right to claim royalty on minerals mined by landowners from privately owned
lands in the erstwhile Malabar region. At the same time, the Court made clear
that if mining had been carried out without the necessary legal permissions,
the State has the power to recover the value of the minerals mined and the
applicable penalty in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the
Act, 2021 is constitutional and valid, and that the State has the power to
enact such legislation — thereby dismissing the petitions.
The landowners appealed against this
judgment before the Division Bench.
Therefore, this judgment addressed
ownership of the minerals, the right to recover royalty, and the power to
recover the value and penalty for minerals mined without permission —
Download
High Court Judgment: Ashok George vs The Secretary To Government on 19
December, 2025
Division Bench judgment on the Vesting
of Rights Act, 2021 — July 2026
The Division Bench considered the appeals
filed against the Single Bench judgment of 19 December 2025. The Division
Bench, comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preetha A.K.,
heard the connected appeals together and delivered a common judgment. Although
the Single Bench had upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala Minerals
(Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021, the Division Bench rejected that position and
declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 unconstitutional.
The question of legislative competence
The Division Bench also considered
whether the State Legislature possessed the legislative competence to vest, in
this manner, in the State the mineral rights in the soil and sub-soil of lands
in the erstwhile Malabar region, thereby vesting in the State the mineral
rights in privately owned lands. The 2021 Act vests in the State the mineral
rights in the soil and sub-soil of lands in the erstwhile Malabar region. The
Division Bench also considered the question of whether the State Legislature
possessed the legislative competence to vest such mineral rights in privately
owned lands in the State in this manner.
The Court also examined whether the 2021
Act, without being confined to minor minerals alone, also covers rights
relating to minerals including major minerals, and to what extent the State
Legislature has legislative competence in such matters. The Court considered
the regulatory field occupied by the central legislation, the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in relation to major minerals,
and its constitutional implications.
Along with this, the Court also examined
whether the necessary legislative competence for the 2021 Act could be found
under legislative entries in the Constitution such as Entry 18, Entry 23 of
List II, and Entry 42 of List III. Thus, the extent of the State Legislature’s
legislative competence to vest mineral rights in the State, and the
constitutional validity of the 2021 Act, became the central issues in this
examination.
Article 300A and the denial of the right
to property
The Division Bench found that, by vesting
in the State, through the 2021 Act, the mineral rights in the soil and sub-soil
of privately owned lands, a situation arises in which landowners are deprived
of rights relating to their property.
Such a denial of property rights is a
matter falling within the scope of Article 300A of the Constitution. However,
the Division Bench found that the 2021 Act did not contain the necessary
provisions to compensate landowners for the rights they lose as a result of the
vesting of mineral rights in privately owned lands in the State.
The problem here is not that the
compensation is low or inadequate. Rather, what the Court regarded as the
significant deficiency was that the Act itself contained no legal provision for
compensating landowners for the loss of rights resulting from the vesting of
their mineral rights in the State.
In these circumstances, the Division
Bench found that the denial of property rights arising from the vesting of
mineral rights in privately owned lands in the State did not satisfy the
constitutional requirements of Article 300A.
The relevance of Articles 14, 19 and 21
While examining the constitutional
validity of the 2021 Act, the Court also examined the constitutional
implications of the interference with the rights of private landowners. The
Court also considered how the absence of compensation and of necessary legal
safeguards accorded with the constitutional standards of Articles 14, 19 and
21.
The Court assessed the importance of
having adequate provisions in a law that deprives private landowners of their
mineral rights, to address the consequences of that loss of rights and to
provide the necessary safeguards. The Court found that the absence of these
constitutional safeguards also affected the validity of the law insofar as it
deprives a person of property under Article 300A.
Protection under Articles 31A and 31C
The Division Bench also considered
whether the 2021 Act could receive constitutional protection under Article 31A
or Article 31C. Having examined the nature of the Act and its constitutional
standing, the Court found that the Act does not receive the necessary
constitutional protection under these provisions.
Therefore, it became necessary to examine
the constitutional validity of the Act on the basis of the ordinary
constitutional provisions, particularly on the basis of the property-right
protections including Article 300A.
The deficiency in the law and the limits
of judicial intervention
The Division Bench found that although
the 2021 Act contained a provision for vesting mineral rights in the State,
because it lacked the necessary provisions regarding compensation and other
necessary safeguards, it would require the Court itself to “read in” the
necessary provisions into the law in order to render the Act constitutionally
valid.
However, the Division Bench made clear
that for the Court itself to add such provisions, which are absent from the
law, in order to render the Act constitutionally valid, would amount to the
Court exceeding the limits of its power of legal interpretation and stepping
into legislation, and that this would not accord with the constitutional
principle of separation of powers.
Therefore, the Court found that, since
these fundamental deficiencies in the law could not be remedied by the Court
itself so as to sustain the Act, the constitutional validity of the 2021 Act
could not be sustained.
The Division Bench’s final position
On this basis, the Division Bench
declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 unconstitutional.
The Court considered the extent of the legislative competence to vest mineral
rights in privately owned lands in the State, the relevance of the central
legislation relating to major minerals, the constitutional implications of
depriving private landowners of their mineral rights, and the absence of
compensation and necessary safeguards.
In particular, one of the judgment’s key
constitutional findings is that the absence of a legal provision for
compensation when private landowners’ mineral rights are extinguished does not
accord with the requirements of Article 300A. On this basis, the Division Bench
set aside the Single Bench’s position upholding the constitutional validity of
the 2021 Act, and declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021
unconstitutional.
Download
High Court Judgment: K.P. Chandramohan & Another v. State of Kerala &
Others 18 July 2026
Legal questions and further
proceedings likely to arise in future
With the Division Bench’s judgment
declaring the Vesting of Rights Act, 2021 unconstitutional, the legal position
regarding mineral rights in privately owned lands in the erstwhile Malabar
region has again reached a decisive stage. The status of the private mineral
rights that the 2021 law intended to vest in the State will now need to be
reconsidered. In this situation, one of the important questions that arises is
whether the earlier legal position recognised in the Thressiamma Jacob judgment
will regain significance. However, since the possibility remains of further
legal proceedings before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s
judgment, it cannot yet be said that this legal position is finally settled.
Alongside this, the legal implications of
the removal of certain provisions of the KMMC Rules through S.R.O. 391/2020 of
2020 are also significant. With the Vesting of Rights Act, 2021 having been
invalidated, whether the provisions of the KMMC Rules removed through S.R.O.
No. 391/2020 automatically revive as a result of the Act being declared
invalid is a legal question requiring separate examination. Alternatively,
whether the government will need to bring in a new legal mechanism concerning
private mineral rights is also an important question.
Even in a situation where mineral rights
in privately owned lands are recognised, this does not give landowners the
right to carry out unregulated mining on that basis. The government continues
to hold statutory regulatory authority in areas such as permission for mining,
environmental protection, safety, regulation of mining, and conservation of
mineral resources. Therefore, ensuring a clear legal balance between private
mineral rights and the government’s power to regulate mining will be an
important challenge before the government going forward.
For this, it may become necessary to
review the existing laws and rules, and to formulate a clear legal mechanism
that, while recognising private mineral rights, also effectively regulates
mining operations. In particular, legislative measures may be required that
clearly define the relationship between mineral rights, mining permission,
royalty, environmental protection, and public interest.
Therefore, although the Division Bench
judgment of July 2026 is a significant stage in this long legal history, it
cannot be said that the final chapter of this subject has thereby come to a
close. Further legal proceedings before the Supreme Court, the status of the
rules following the 2021 law, and the State’s new legislative possibilities —
all of these will be factors determining the future legal position on this
subject. How to ensure a constitutional balance among private ownership,
mineral rights, rights relating to royalty, and the State’s regulatory
authority in the public interest is the important question that remains to be
resolved.
Biju Sebastian is a retired Deputy Director of the Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Kerala. With over three decades of experience in mineral administration, mining laws, geology, GIS, and e-governance, he founded Mine Mapper, an independent platform dedicated to mining, geology, geospatial technologies, and digital solutions for the mining sector. Through Mine Mapper, he publishes the MiningWatch Kerala series featuring research-based articles, legal analyses, and technical insights on mining legislation, judicial decisions, environmental regulation, and mineral administration. The platform also provides practical digital tools and resources, including mine mapping applications, mining plan preparation tools, and other GIS-based utilities for professionals, industry, and the public.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the author in his personal capacity and are intended solely for educational and informational purposes. They do not represent the official views or policies of the Government of Kerala, the Department of Mining and Geology, or any other government authority.
This article does not constitute legal advice or an official interpretation of any law. Readers are advised to refer to the original Acts, Rules, Notifications, Government Orders, Circulars, and judicial decisions, or seek appropriate professional advice where necessary.
For the complete Disclaimer, please refer to the Disclaimer page.
0 Comments