The Bombay High Court has held that extra excavation of soil/earth alone is not sufficient to hold that such excavated material is a minor mineral. The High Court further held that royalty cannot be imposed in such cases.

The High Court was considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Revenue Authorities.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker held, “In any construction activity, an excavation is a natural part of construction activity. Certain extent of the excavated material is also required to be refilled. However, unless it is positively demonstrated or clear inferences are drawn that the material is used for the purposes as mentioned in the notification, royalty cannot be imposed on the excavated soil/earth, as the same cannot be quantified as minor mineral. Extra excavation alone is not sufficient to hold that the extra excavated material is a minor mineral as the excavation being a natural part of the construction activity.”

Advocate S. S. Patwardhan represented the Petitioner while Additional Govt Pleader Savina R. Crasto represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed they had permission to construct on a plot of land and had also paid royalty for excavation of earth of 897 brass.The Revenue Authorities found that there was excavation in addition of 3216.4 brass of soil/earth/murum from the construction site and accordingly, had imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,21,05,180 for the excavated material.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that excavation is a natural part of construction activity and the excavated mineral has to be refilled in the same site, except certain portion in which the RCC component is filled in. It was further submitted that the royalty was paid on 897 brass of soil/earth/murum.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others (2015), wherein it has been held that the earth excavated is a minor mineral only when it is used for the end products, as mentioned in the Notification dated February 3, 2000.

The High Court held that unless it is positively demonstrated that the material is used for the purposes as mentioned in the notification, royalty cannot be imposed on the excavated soil/earth, as the same cannot be quantified as minor mineral.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the impugned order passed by the concerned authority.

Cause Title: Viren Buildcon LLP v. The State Of Maharshtra (Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates S. S. Patwardhan, Harshad Sathe, Harshada Shrikhande

Respondent: Additional Govt Pleader Savina R. Crasto

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay HCJustice Arun R. Pedneker

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.