{"id":16615,"date":"2026-03-05T10:39:20","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T10:39:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=16615"},"modified":"2026-03-05T10:42:37","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T10:42:37","slug":"ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/","title":{"rendered":"No Royalty or Permission Required for Excavation of Ordinary Earth in Building Foundations When Refilled On-Site"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-analysis-commentary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Analysis_Commentary\"><\/span>Legal Analysis &amp; Commentary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-insights-mmdr-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Insights_from_the_Supreme_Court_and_High_Courts_under_the_Mines_and_Minerals_Development_and_Regulation_Act_1957\"><\/span>Judicial Insights from the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"executive-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Executive_Summary\"><\/span>Executive Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This article examines the settled judicial position under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and its cognate state rules regarding excavation of ordinary earth incidental to construction of building foundations.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Legal_Analysis_Commentary\" >Legal Analysis &amp; Commentary<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Judicial_Insights_from_the_Supreme_Court_and_High_Courts_under_the_Mines_and_Minerals_Development_and_Regulation_Act_1957\" >Judicial Insights from the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Executive_Summary\" >Executive Summary<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_Judicial_Decisions\" >Key Legal Principles Emerging from Judicial Decisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Important_Legal_References\" >Important Legal References<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#I_Introduction\" >I. Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Key_Legal_Questions\" >Key Legal Questions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Judicial_Consensus\" >Judicial Consensus<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#II_The_Statutory_Framework\" >II. The Statutory Framework<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#A_The_Mines_and_Minerals_Development_and_Regulation_Act_1957\" >A. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#1_Section_3a_%E2%80%9CMine%E2%80%9D\" >1. Section 3(a): &#8220;Mine&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#2_Section_3d_%E2%80%9CMining_Operations%E2%80%9D\" >2. Section 3(d): &#8220;Mining Operations&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#3_Section_3e_%E2%80%9CMinor_Minerals%E2%80%9D\" >3. Section 3(e): &#8220;Minor Minerals&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#4_Section_4_Prohibition_Without_Lease_Or_Permit\" >4. Section 4: Prohibition Without Lease Or Permit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#5_Section_9_Royalty\" >5. Section 9: Royalty<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#6_Section_15_State_Power_To_Make_Rules_For_Minor_Minerals\" >6. Section 15: State Power To Make Rules For Minor Minerals<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#7_Section_21_Penalties\" >7. Section 21: Penalties<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#B_The_Central_Notification_Of_February_3_2000_%E2%80%94_GSR_95E_The_Pivotal_Delegated_Legislation\" >B. The Central Notification Of February 3, 2000 \u2014 GSR 95(E): The Pivotal Delegated Legislation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#C_State_Minor_Mineral_Rules\" >C. State Minor Mineral Rules<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#1_Uttar_Pradesh_Minor_Minerals_Concession_Rules_1963\" >1. Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#2_Maharashtra_Minor_Mineral_Extraction_Development_and_Regulation_Rules_2013_And_The_2015_Amendment\" >2. Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 And The 2015 Amendment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#3_Maharashtra_Land_Revenue_Code_1966_%E2%80%94_Section_487\" >3. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 \u2014 Section 48(7)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#III_The_Decisive_Test_Purpose_And_End-Use_Of_Excavated_Earth\" >III. The Decisive Test: Purpose And End-Use Of Excavated Earth<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#IV_The_Supreme_Courts_Foundational_Ruling\" >IV. The Supreme Court&#8217;s Foundational Ruling<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Promoters_Builders_Association_of_Pune_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2015_12_SCC_736\" >Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 12 SCC 736<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Background_and_Facts\" >Background and Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Questions_of_Law\" >Questions of Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Ratio_Decidendi_and_Holdings\" >Ratio Decidendi and Holdings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Significance_and_Impact\" >Significance and Impact<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#V_The_Pre-Existing_Precedent_Bombay_High_Court_1993\" >V. The Pre-Existing Precedent: Bombay High Court (1993)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Rashtriya_Chemicals_and_Fertilizers_Ltd_v_State_of_Maharashtra_AIR_1993_Bombay_144\" >Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 Bombay 144<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#VI_High_Court_Decisions_A_Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction_Analysis\" >VI. High Court Decisions: A Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#A_Bombay_High_Court\" >A. Bombay High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#1_BGR_Energy_System_Ltd_Khaparkheda_v_Tehsildar_Saoner_and_Others_2018_1_MhLJ_332\" >1. BGR Energy System Ltd., Khaparkheda v. Tehsildar, Saoner and Others, (2018) 1 MhLJ 332<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#2_Ms_Royale_Urbanspace_and_Ors_v_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Anr\" >2. M\/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#3_Matrix_Developers_Pvt_Ltd_v_The_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Ors\" >3. Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#4_PSC_Pacific_v_State_of_Maharashtra\" >4. PSC Pacific v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#5_Flagship_Infrastructure_Pvt_Ltd_v_The_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Ors\" >5. Flagship Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#B_Allahabad_High_Court_Uttar_Pradesh\" >B. Allahabad High Court (Uttar Pradesh)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#1_General_Position_in_Uttar_Pradesh\" >1. General Position in Uttar Pradesh<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#2_Reported_Decisions_of_the_Allahabad_High_Court_on_Ordinary_Earth\" >2. Reported Decisions of the Allahabad High Court on Ordinary Earth<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#3_Cases_Involving_Construction_Projects_in_UP\" >3. Cases Involving Construction Projects in UP<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#C_Other_High_Courts\" >C. Other High Courts<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#1_Kerala_High_Court\" >1. Kerala High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-45\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#2_Gauhati_High_Court\" >2. Gauhati High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-46\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#VII_Key_Environmental_and_Regulatory_Considerations\" >VII. Key Environmental and Regulatory Considerations<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-47\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#A_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_EIA_%E2%80%94_MoEF_Notification_2006\" >A. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) \u2014 MoEF Notification, 2006<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-48\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#B_District_Mineral_Foundation_DMF_%E2%80%94_Section_9-B_MMDR_Act\" >B. District Mineral Foundation (DMF) \u2014 Section 9-B, MMDR Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-49\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#C_State_Pollution_Control_Board_Consent\" >C. State Pollution Control Board Consent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-50\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#D_Planning_Authority_and_Development_Permissions\" >D. Planning Authority and Development Permissions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-51\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#VIII_Practical_Guidelines_For_Builders_Developers_And_Contractors\" >VIII. Practical Guidelines For Builders, Developers, And Contractors<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-52\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#A_Documentation_And_Record-Keeping\" >A. Documentation And Record-Keeping<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-53\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#B_Response_To_Revenue_Authority_Notices\" >B. Response To Revenue Authority Notices<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-54\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#C_Points_Of_Caution\" >C. Points Of Caution<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-55\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#IX_Summary_Table_Of_Key_Cases_And_Holdings\" >IX. Summary Table Of Key Cases And Holdings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-56\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-57\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Settled_Legal_Position\" >Settled Legal Position<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-58\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Determinative_Test_Applied_by_Courts\" >Determinative Test Applied by Courts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-59\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#Practical_Guidance_for_Builders_and_Developers\" >Practical Guidance for Builders and Developers<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-60\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ordinary-earth-excavation-foundation-mmdr-act-supreme-court-judgment\/#XI_Table_Of_Statutes_Notifications_And_Rules\" >XI. Table Of Statutes, Notifications, And Rules<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>A consistent line of authority \u2014 from the Supreme Court in <em>Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 12 SCC 736<\/em>, to High Court decisions across Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh \u2014 holds that ordinary earth excavated solely for laying masonry or RCC foundations, and thereafter refilled on the very same plot without commercial exploitation, does not constitute &#8220;mining operations&#8221; within Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Such earth does not qualify as a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; under the Central Gazette Notification dated February 3, 2000 (GSR 95(E)), because that Notification restricts &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; status to ordinary earth &#8220;used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings&#8221; \u2014 a purposive criterion determined by the end-use of the excavated material, not the mere act of digging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, no mining lease, quarry permit, or royalty payment is required under the MMDR Act or state minor mineral rules for such on-site, non-commercial redeployment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_Judicial_Decisions\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Emerging from Judicial Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Excavation of ordinary earth for foundation work alone does not amount to mining.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The determining factor is the <strong>end-use of the excavated earth<\/strong>, not the act of excavation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Earth excavated and reused on the same plot without commercial sale does not become a minor mineral.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No royalty, mining lease, or quarry permit is required in such situations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-legal-references\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Legal_References\"><\/span>Important Legal References<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Legal Instrument \/ Case<\/th><th>Relevance<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<\/td><td>Primary statute governing mining operations and regulation of minerals in India.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act<\/td><td>Defines the term &#8220;mining operations.&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Central Gazette Notification dated February 3, 2000 (GSR 95(E))<\/td><td>Defines circumstances where ordinary earth qualifies as a minor mineral.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 12 SCC 736<\/td><td>Landmark Supreme Court ruling clarifying that excavation for foundations does not constitute mining.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"I_Introduction\"><\/span>I. Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Construction of any building, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, invariably requires excavation of earth for laying its foundation \u2014 be it an open-strip footing, a pile foundation, a raft foundation, or a reinforced cement concrete (RCC) basement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the typical construction cycle, the excavated earth is set aside during foundation-laying and subsequently refilled around and over the foundation after the structural work is complete. In many projects, the same earth is also used for plinth filling, levelling, and backfilling within the plot boundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A recurring legal question has vexed builders, developers, public sector undertakings, and infrastructure companies across India: does such excavation of ordinary earth trigger the regulatory framework of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter &#8220;MMDR Act&#8221;)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-questions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Questions\"><\/span>Key Legal Questions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Does the builder require a mining lease or quarry permit?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Does he owe royalty to the State?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Does excavation for foundation work amount to &#8220;mining operations&#8221; under the MMDR Act?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The revenue authorities \u2014 particularly Tahsildars in Maharashtra and District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh \u2014 have frequently answered in the affirmative, levying heavy penalties and royalty under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), sometimes running into crores of rupees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The courts, however, have repeatedly rejected such broad-brush enforcement. From the foundational Supreme Court ruling of 2014 to a series of High Court decisions spanning over three decades, the judicial consensus has crystallised around a single, powerful principle: the determinant is the end-use and purpose of the excavated earth, not the mere act of excavation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-consensus\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Consensus\"><\/span>Judicial Consensus<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Judicial Principle<\/th><th>Explanation<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>End-use test<\/td><td>The legal classification depends on how the excavated earth is used.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>No commercial exploitation<\/td><td>If the earth is not sold or commercially exploited, it does not become a mineral resource.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>On-site redeployment<\/td><td>Earth reused on the same site for backfilling or levelling remains outside mining regulation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>No MMDR compliance required<\/td><td>No mining lease, quarry permit, or royalty obligation arises.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>If ordinary earth is excavated for foundation work and redeployed on the same site without commercial exploitation, it does not acquire the character of a &#8220;minor mineral,&#8221; and no regulatory obligation arises under the MMDR Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This article presents an exhaustive analysis of the applicable legal framework \u2014 the MMDR Act, the Central Notification of 2000, state minor mineral rules (particularly in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh), and environmental regulations \u2014 followed by a detailed examination of key judicial pronouncements, their ratio decidendi, and their practical implications for the construction sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutory-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"II_The_Statutory_Framework\"><\/span>II. The Statutory Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mmdr-act-1957\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_The_Mines_and_Minerals_Development_and_Regulation_Act_1957\"><\/span>A. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The MMDR Act is the parent central legislation governing mines and minerals throughout India, enacted in exercise of Parliament&#8217;s power under Entry 54 of the Union List (List I, Seventh Schedule) to the Constitution of India. Its constitutionality has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, (2024) SCC (a nine-judge Constitution Bench decision clarifying that royalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act is not a tax but a contractual exaction in the nature of a price for the privilege of extraction).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For the purposes of this article, the following provisions are most material:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-3a-mine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Section_3a_%E2%80%9CMine%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>1. Section 3(a): &#8220;Mine&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The MMDR Act does not independently define &#8220;mine.&#8221; However, Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 \u2014 which is related central legislation \u2014 defines a mine to mean any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on. The Supreme Court noted in Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune that mere digging of earth, without any intention of &#8220;winning&#8221; a mineral, does not constitute a &#8220;mine&#8221; under the Mines Act, 1952.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-3d-mining-operations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Section_3d_%E2%80%9CMining_Operations%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>2. Section 3(d): &#8220;Mining Operations&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 3(d) defines &#8220;mining operations&#8221; to mean any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral. The critical operative phrase is &#8220;for the purpose of winning.&#8221; The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the purpose of excavation is construction \u2014 not extraction of a marketable mineral \u2014 no &#8220;mining operation&#8221; occurs within Section 3(d). This purposive interpretation is the cornerstone of the exemption for on-site foundation excavations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-3e-minor-minerals\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Section_3e_%E2%80%9CMinor_Minerals%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>3. Section 3(e): &#8220;Minor Minerals&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 3(e) defines &#8220;minor minerals&#8221; to mean &#8220;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.&#8221; Ordinary earth is not expressly listed in this definition. It was brought within the ambit of &#8220;minor minerals&#8221; only by delegated legislation \u2014 the Central Gazette Notification of February 3, 2000 \u2014 but with an important, inbuilt restriction on its scope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-4-prohibition-without-lease\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Section_4_Prohibition_Without_Lease_Or_Permit\"><\/span>4. Section 4: Prohibition Without Lease Or Permit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 4(1) prohibits any person from undertaking any mining operation in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act. Section 4(1A) extends a similar prohibition to reconnaissance and prospecting operations. These prohibitions are operative only where a &#8220;mining operation&#8221; as defined in Section 3(d) is in fact being carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-9-royalty\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Section_9_Royalty\"><\/span>5. Section 9: Royalty<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 9(1) requires every holder of a mining lease to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him from the leased area at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act. Royalty obligations are thus linked to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(i) the existence of a valid mining lease<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(ii) the removal or consumption of a mineral<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(iii) the mineral so removed being a recognised &#8220;mineral&#8221; under the Act<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Where the excavated earth does not qualify as a minor mineral \u2014 because the Notification&#8217;s end-use criterion is not met \u2014 no royalty obligation arises independently of a lease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-15-state-rule-making-power\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Section_15_State_Power_To_Make_Rules_For_Minor_Minerals\"><\/span>6. Section 15: State Power To Make Rules For Minor Minerals<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers State Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. It is under this power that states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and others have framed their respective minor mineral concession\/extraction rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-21-penalties\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"7_Section_21_Penalties\"><\/span>7. Section 21: Penalties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 21 of the MMDR Act prescribes penalties for mining without a lease or permit. Section 21(5) provides for confiscation of minerals illegally mined. These penal provisions are invoked by State authorities against builders and contractors alleged to have excavated ordinary earth without permits, but as the courts have held, they cannot be attracted where no &#8220;mining operation&#8221; within the meaning of Section 3(d) has occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"central-notification-3-feb-2000\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_The_Central_Notification_Of_February_3_2000_%E2%80%94_GSR_95E_The_Pivotal_Delegated_Legislation\"><\/span>B. The Central Notification Of February 3, 2000 \u2014 GSR 95(E): The Pivotal Delegated Legislation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The single most important piece of delegated legislation in this domain is the Central Gazette Notification No. GSR 95(E) dated February 3, 2000, issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, in exercise of powers under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act. The full text of the operative portion is reproduced below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;GSR 95(E) \u2014 In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), the Central Government hereby declares the &#8216;ordinary earth&#8217; used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings to be a minor mineral in addition to the minerals already declared as minor minerals hereinbefore under the said clause.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>Four features of this Notification deserve careful attention:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Restrictive Scope:<\/strong> The Notification does not declare all ordinary earth to be a minor mineral. It confines minor mineral status only to ordinary earth &#8220;used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings.&#8221; The word &#8220;used&#8221; imports a purposive, end-use criterion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>No Royalty On Incidental Excavation:<\/strong> Earth excavated as an incidental consequence of foundation-laying \u2014 where the primary purpose is structural, not mineral extraction \u2014 does not fall within the Notification&#8217;s ambit, since it is not &#8220;used&#8221; for any of the enumerated filling\/levelling purposes in a commercial or public-works sense.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Non-Retroactivity:<\/strong> Ordinary earth was not a minor mineral before February 3, 2000. Any enforcement actions for pre-2000 excavations were entirely without statutory basis.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>On-Site Refilling:<\/strong> Where the excavated earth is refilled on the same plot \u2014 whether into foundation trenches, as plinth fill, or for site levelling \u2014 no separate act of &#8220;using&#8221; the earth for commercial filling\/levelling in the sense of the Notification occurs. The earth is simply relocated within the same parcel of land.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"state-minor-mineral-rules\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_State_Minor_Mineral_Rules\"><\/span>C. State Minor Mineral Rules<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>States have framed their own rules under Section 15 of the MMDR Act to govern minor minerals within their jurisdictions. The rules relevant to this discussion include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"up-minor-minerals-rules-1963\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Uttar_Pradesh_Minor_Minerals_Concession_Rules_1963\"><\/span>1. Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The UP Minor Minerals Rules of 1963 (as amended from time to time) regulate the grant of mining leases, quarry permits, and collection of royalty on minor minerals in Uttar Pradesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Rule 2(5):<\/strong> Defines &#8220;mining operations&#8221; in terms broadly tracking Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act \u2014 i.e., operations &#8220;for the purpose of winning any minor mineral.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Rule 3:<\/strong> Governs the grant of quarry leases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>First Schedule:<\/strong> Sets out royalty rates, including for ordinary earth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These rules have been considered by the Allahabad High Court in several decisions, which have consistently held that the purposive criterion of Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act and the Notification of 2000 equally govern the interpretation of these rules. Excavation that does not constitute &#8220;winning&#8221; of ordinary earth \u2014 because the earth is not being obtained for commercial use or off-site deployment \u2014 does not attract the rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is also notable that the UP rules (as amended in 2021 and 2022 to incorporate Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules) have strengthened enforcement against illegal quarrying. However, these enforcement mechanisms presuppose the existence of an actual mining operation within the meaning of the MMDR Act, which \u2014 as demonstrated below \u2014 does not arise for on-site foundation work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"maharashtra-minor-mineral-rules-2013\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Maharashtra_Minor_Mineral_Extraction_Development_and_Regulation_Rules_2013_And_The_2015_Amendment\"><\/span>2. Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 And The 2015 Amendment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (MME Rules, 2013) under Section 15 of the MMDR Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Rule 46:<\/strong> Deals with royalty payable by lessees.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Following the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2014 ruling, the State of Maharashtra took the significant legislative step of prospectively codifying the judicial position:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By Notification No. Gaukhani-10\/1012\/G.R. 603\/kh dated May 11, 2015, the Government of Maharashtra amended Rule 46 of the MME Rules, 2013 by inserting the following proviso in Rule 46(a)(i):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Provided further that, no royalty shall be required to be paid on earth which is extracted while developing a plot of land and utilized on the very same plot for land levelling or any work in the process of development of such plot.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This amendment effectively gave statutory teeth to the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling and eliminated any residual ambiguity about whether royalty was payable on on-site redeployment of excavated earth in Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court has applied this amended provision in numerous post-2015 decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"maharashtra-land-revenue-code-1966\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Maharashtra_Land_Revenue_Code_1966_%E2%80%94_Section_487\"><\/span>3. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 \u2014 Section 48(7)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) empowers the State to levy penalty on any person who &#8220;without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The revenue authorities in Maharashtra have frequently invoked this provision against builders. However, the courts have consistently held that this provision operates only where a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; is being extracted \u2014 a threshold that is not met for on-site foundation earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decisive-test-purpose-end-use\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"III_The_Decisive_Test_Purpose_And_End-Use_Of_Excavated_Earth\"><\/span>III. The Decisive Test: Purpose And End-Use Of Excavated Earth<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Before examining individual cases, it is useful to articulate the clear legal test that has emerged from the case law. The following matrix captures the framework:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Scenario<\/th><th>Purpose Of Excavation<\/th><th>End-Use Of Earth<\/th><th>Minor Mineral Status<\/th><th>Royalty \/ Permit Required?<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Foundation Excavation, On-Site Refilling<\/td><td>Structural \u2014 laying masonry\/RCC foundation<\/td><td>Refilled on same plot; plinth fill, levelling<\/td><td>NOT a minor mineral<\/td><td>NO<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Basement Excavation, Earth Sold\/Transported<\/td><td>Structural, but earth commercially exploited<\/td><td>Sold to third party or transported off-site<\/td><td>IS a minor mineral<\/td><td>YES<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Quarrying for Commercial Supply<\/td><td>Extraction and sale of earth<\/td><td>Supplied to road\/embankment contractors<\/td><td>IS a minor mineral<\/td><td>YES<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Road\/Embankment Filling \u2014 Earth Procured Externally<\/td><td>Filling of embankment, road, railway<\/td><td>Filling\/levelling for road or embankment<\/td><td>IS a minor mineral<\/td><td>YES<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Excess Earth from Large Projects<\/td><td>Structural, but surplus earth sold\/removed<\/td><td>Off-site disposal or sale of surplus<\/td><td>IS a minor mineral (surplus portion)<\/td><td>YES \u2014 for surplus portion<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The common thread running through all exempted scenarios is the absence of commercial exploitation. The earth must be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(i) excavated as an incidental consequence of construction, not for the purpose of winning a mineral<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(ii) redeployed on the same plot of land<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(iii) not transported off-site or sold to any third party<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-foundational-ruling\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IV_The_Supreme_Courts_Foundational_Ruling\"><\/span>IV. The Supreme Court&#8217;s Foundational Ruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"promoters-builders-association-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Promoters_Builders_Association_of_Pune_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2015_12_SCC_736\"><\/span>Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 12 SCC 736<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Details<\/th><th>Information<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Decision<\/td><td>December 3, 2014<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Bench<\/td><td>Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice A.K. Sikri<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"background-and-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background_and_Facts\"><\/span>Background and Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune, along with several individual builders and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), were hauled up by Maharashtra revenue authorities under Section 48(7) of the MLRC for excavating ordinary earth without a quarry permit or royalty payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The builders had dug earth for foundation-laying pursuant to sanctioned development plans under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and had redeployed the excavated earth within their respective construction sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the NPCIL case, the earth was excavated during widening of a water intake channel at an atomic power station and was used on-site. In neither case was the earth commercially sold or transported outside the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Revenue authorities had imposed significant penalties, treating the excavated earth as a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; by virtue of the Notification dated February 3, 2000. The Bombay High Court had upheld the levy. The appellants approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"questions-of-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Questions_of_Law\"><\/span>Questions of Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court framed the core question as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether ordinary earth excavated in the process of laying foundations for buildings, and redeployed on the same site, constitutes a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; within the Notification of 2000 and triggers the regulatory regime of the MMDR Act and Section 48(7) of the MLRC.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ratio-decidendi-and-holdings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ratio_Decidendi_and_Holdings\"><\/span>Ratio Decidendi and Holdings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice A.K. Sikri, writing for the Bench, laid down the following propositions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Inbuilt Restriction In The 2000 Notification:<\/strong> The Notification of 2000 has an &#8220;inbuilt restriction&#8221;: it brings ordinary earth within the fold of minor minerals only if it is used for filling or levelling purposes in the construction of embankments, roads, railways, or buildings. The word &#8220;used&#8221; must be interpreted with reference to purpose and end-use.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Purpose Of Excavation As The Decisive Test:<\/strong> The purpose of excavation is the decisive test. The Court held: &#8220;As use can only follow extraction or excavation, it is the purpose of the excavation that has to be seen&#8230; An excavation undertaken to lay the foundation of a building would not, ordinarily, carry the intention to use the excavated earth for the purpose of filling up or levelling.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Blanket Liability Is Impermissible:<\/strong> &#8220;a blanket determination of liability merely because ordinary earth was dug up&#8221; is legally unsustainable. The authority must examine how and for what purpose the excavated earth was used.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Commercial Exploitation As The Threshold:<\/strong> The absence of any commercial exploitation \u2014 no sale, no off-site transport \u2014 is a decisive factor against classifying the excavated earth as a minor mineral.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Approval Of Construction Activity:<\/strong> Where the earth is excavated pursuant to sanctioned building plans under town planning\/development legislation, and redeployed as an integral part of that approved development, no separate mining permission is required.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Crucially, the Court also relied with approval on the earlier Bombay High Court judgment in Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 Bombay 144, where a learned single Judge had poetically observed that &#8220;to equate the earth removed in the process of digging a foundation, or otherwise, as a mineral product, in that context, would be a murder of an alien but lovely language.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court allowed all the appeals, set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court, and quashed the penalty\/royalty demands. It left open \u2014 as unnecessary to decide \u2014 the constitutional validity of Section 48(7) of the MLRC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"significance-and-impact\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Significance_and_Impact\"><\/span>Significance and Impact<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Promoters &amp; Builders judgment is the authoritative Supreme Court ruling on this question. It has been:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(i) cited and followed in over 50 reported and unreported decisions of High Courts across the country;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(ii) the basis for Maharashtra&#8217;s 2015 legislative amendment to Rule 46 of the MME Rules;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(iii) noted in financial reporting by real estate developers as providing significant regulatory relief; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(iv) applied broadly to cover not just residential construction but industrial projects, public infrastructure, and government undertakings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pre-existing-precedent-bombay-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"V_The_Pre-Existing_Precedent_Bombay_High_Court_1993\"><\/span>V. The Pre-Existing Precedent: Bombay High Court (1993)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rashtriya-chemicals-fertilizers-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rashtriya_Chemicals_and_Fertilizers_Ltd_v_State_of_Maharashtra_AIR_1993_Bombay_144\"><\/span>Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 Bombay 144<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Details<\/th><th>Information<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Year<\/td><td>1993<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Bench<\/td><td>Single Judge Bench<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Long before the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2014 ruling, the Bombay High Court had articulated the principle that ordinary earth excavated in the course of construction or development activity does not automatically become a regulated mineral product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner, a public sector fertilizer company, had excavated earth in the course of construction activities on land granted to it by the State Government. The State sought to levy charges on the excavated earth as a mineral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The learned single Judge held that the reading of the entire grant \u2014 the purpose for which the land was granted \u2014 would rule out treating every pebble or particle of soil in the granted land as partaking the character of a mineral product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court found the Revenue&#8217;s interpretation to be leading to &#8220;patently absurd results,&#8221; and quashed the levy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision was expressly noted with approval by the Supreme Court in Promoters &amp; Builders (2014), thus elevating it to the status of a building-block of the jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"high-court-decisions-jurisdiction-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VI_High_Court_Decisions_A_Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction_Analysis\"><\/span>VI. High Court Decisions: A Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bombay-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Bombay_High_Court\"><\/span>A. Bombay High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bgr-energy-system-v-tehsildar-saoner-2018\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_BGR_Energy_System_Ltd_Khaparkheda_v_Tehsildar_Saoner_and_Others_2018_1_MhLJ_332\"><\/span>1. BGR Energy System Ltd., Khaparkheda v. Tehsildar, Saoner and Others, (2018) 1 MhLJ 332<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)<\/strong> | Reported at (2018) 1 Maharashtra Law Journal 332<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>BGR Energy Systems Limited was engaged in construction of a thermal power plant at Khaparkheda, Nagpur district. During the construction of the plant&#8217;s foundation pits, ordinary earth was excavated and subsequently used to refill the pits after the foundation was laid. The Tahsildar, Saoner, directed BGR Energy to pay royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the MLRC for allegedly unauthorised excavation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bombay High Court quashed the Tahsildar&#8217;s order, applying the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in Promoters &amp; Builders. The Court held that the excavated earth, having been used by the petitioner solely to fill up the pits after foundation-laying, did not fall within the Notification of February 3, 2000 \u2014 it was not used for filling or levelling in any of the enumerated categories of embankments, roads, railways, or buildings in a commercial sense. The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;If the excavated earth is not used for filling or levelling in construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings, etc., the said earth would not be a &#8216;minor mineral.&#8217; Use of the excavated earth to fill up the dug pits and any construction of the project did not fall within the ambit of the Notification dated 03.02.2000.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision is significant because it extended the principle beyond residential and commercial building projects to large-scale industrial and energy infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"royale-urbanspace-v-state-of-maharashtra-2022\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Ms_Royale_Urbanspace_and_Ors_v_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Anr\"><\/span>2. M\/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong> | Justice S.J. Kathawalla and Justice Milind N. Jadhav | Decided in 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioners \u2014 a real estate developer \u2014 were issued show-cause notices by the Tahsildar, Shahapur, demanding royalty and penalty of approximately Rs. 1.07 crore and Rs. 5.71 crore respectively under Section 48(7) of the MLRC for excavation of 1,030 brass of minor minerals during foundation-laying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioners had obtained all necessary permissions for development and had redeployed the excavated earth on the same property for filling the excavated portions after foundation completion. The Tahsildar had rejected their replies and directed them to deposit the sums within 7 days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Division Bench quashed the notices and orders, observing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Respondents have merely proceeded on the premise that the very excavation of ordinary earth by the Petitioners is subject to levy of royalty dehors the use for which it was put to. However, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Promoters and Builders Association of Pune (supra), we are not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent(s).&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also noted the 2015 amendment to Rule 46 of the MME Rules, holding that the amended proviso confirmed that no royalty is payable on earth extracted during development of a plot and utilized on the very same plot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"matrix-developers-v-state-of-maharashtra-2021\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Matrix_Developers_Pvt_Ltd_v_The_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Ors\"><\/span>3. Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong> | Decided on December 9, 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tahsildar, Mulshi, had issued show-cause and demand notices alleging unauthorised removal of 7,632 brass of earth during construction of the petitioner&#8217;s building project. The Tahsildar made no factual finding that the earth had been removed from the site or commercially exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bombay High Court, applying Promoters &amp; Builders and the 2015 amendment to Rule 46, held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;If the extracted minor minerals are used on the same plot while developing the said plot, then no royalty is payable by the Petitioner&#8230; The purpose of excavation of minor minerals is required to be looked into by the authority and if the excavation is merely for construction\/formation of plinth, it cannot be termed as mining activity and the developer cannot be forced to pay royalty for the same.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>The notices and demand orders were quashed. The Court observed that the Authorities had proceeded on the legally unsustainable premise that every excavation of ordinary earth automatically attracted royalty liability irrespective of its purpose and end-use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"psc-pacific-v-state-of-maharashtra\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_PSC_Pacific_v_State_of_Maharashtra\"><\/span>4. PSC Pacific v. State of Maharashtra<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong> | Division Bench | Cited in subsequent decisions<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this matter, the Bombay High Court followed the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in Promoters &amp; Builders and quashed penalties imposed on a construction company for excavation of earth incidental to building construction, where the excavated material was used for construction purposes on the same site. This case has been cited in several subsequent Bombay High Court decisions as part of the consistent line of authority on this point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"flagship-infrastructure-v-state-of-maharashtra\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Flagship_Infrastructure_Pvt_Ltd_v_The_State_of_Maharashtra_and_Ors\"><\/span>5. Flagship Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong> | Writ Petition<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tahsildar, Mulshi, issued a notice demanding royalty and penalty of approximately Rs. 24.15 crore for excavating earth during foundation-laying of a large building project. The Bombay High Court, citing the well-established judicial position, quashed the demand, reiterating that the liability under Section 48(7) depends entirely on the use for which the excavated earth is put \u2014 not on the quantum of earth dug or the size of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"allahabad-high-court-uttar-pradesh\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_Allahabad_High_Court_Uttar_Pradesh\"><\/span>B. Allahabad High Court (Uttar Pradesh)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"general-position-uttar-pradesh\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_General_Position_in_Uttar_Pradesh\"><\/span>1. General Position in Uttar Pradesh<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Uttar Pradesh has been a jurisdiction of significant litigation on this question, given the large scale of construction and infrastructure development in the State and the active enforcement of mining regulations by revenue authorities (particularly District Magistrates and sub-divisional officers). The Allahabad High Court has broadly followed the Supreme Court&#8217;s Promoters &amp; Builders ruling in UP-specific contexts, applying it through the lens of the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and the Central Notification of 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Allahabad High Court has consistently held that the purposive test under Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act equally governs the interpretation of Rule 2(5) of the UP 1963 Rules. Excavation that is not for the purpose of &#8220;winning&#8221; ordinary earth \u2014 because the earth is incidental to foundation construction and is redeployed on-site \u2014 does not constitute &#8220;mining operations&#8221; under the state rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reported-decisions-allahabad-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Reported_Decisions_of_the_Allahabad_High_Court_on_Ordinary_Earth\"><\/span>2. Reported Decisions of the Allahabad High Court on Ordinary Earth<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Allahabad High Court, in a series of writ petitions involving construction companies and builders in Uttar Pradesh, has held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The mere extraction of ordinary earth for a purpose other than those enumerated in the Notification of 2000 would not render it liable to be treated as a minor mineral under the MMDR Act or the UP 1963 Rules.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where the petitioner establishes that earth was excavated for building construction purposes and reused on the same plot \u2014 for foundation trenches, plinth filling, or site levelling \u2014 no royalty or permit is required.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Revenue authorities must conduct a factual inquiry into the end-use of the earth before issuing royalty demands or penalty notices. A demand based solely on the fact of excavation, without reference to end-use, cannot be sustained.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In cases where end-use is disputed, the Court has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate or relevant authority for a fresh factual inquiry, placing the burden on the authority to establish commercial exploitation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where the Court finds that no such factual inquiry was conducted, it quashes the demand and directs fresh consideration with the benefit of the applicable legal framework from Promoters &amp; Builders.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cases-involving-construction-projects-up\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Cases_Involving_Construction_Projects_in_UP\"><\/span>3. Cases Involving Construction Projects in UP<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Multiple writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court by builders, developers, and infrastructure companies in UP challenging royalty and penalty demands under the UP 1963 Rules have been decided in favour of the petitioners where the excavated earth was redeployed on-site. The High Court has stressed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The 2000 Notification&#8217;s purposive criterion applies uniformly across all states, given it is a Central Gazette Notification under a Union law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No state rule can override the central framework; royalty under the UP 1963 Rules can only be levied on ordinary earth that qualifies as a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; by satisfying the conditions of the 2000 Notification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The District Magistrate or Collector acting under the UP 1963 Rules must first determine whether a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; is involved \u2014 and cannot presume that all excavated earth automatically qualifies as such.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"other-high-courts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_Other_High_Courts\"><\/span>C. Other High Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"kerala-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Kerala_High_Court\"><\/span>1. Kerala High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>In Construction Materials Movers Association v. State of Kerala, (2008) 4 KLT 909, the Kerala High Court considered the status of ordinary earth under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The Court held that ordinary earth transported for filling\/levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, and buildings is a minor mineral by virtue of the 2000 Notification. The Kerala High Court&#8217;s ruling thus supports the converse proposition equally: earth not used for such enumerated purposes is not a minor mineral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"gauhati-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Gauhati_High_Court\"><\/span>2. Gauhati High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Gauhati High Court has also considered the scope of ordinary earth as a minor mineral under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, observing that where earth is not included as a minor mineral under the relevant state rules and is also not covered by the Central Notification, it cannot be subjected to royalty or licensing requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"environmental-regulatory-considerations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VII_Key_Environmental_and_Regulatory_Considerations\"><\/span>VII. Key Environmental and Regulatory Considerations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>While the MMDR Act&#8217;s framework is clear \u2014 foundation excavation with on-site refilling does not require mining permits or royalty \u2014 builders must remain mindful of intersecting regulatory requirements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"environmental-impact-assessment-eia\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_EIA_%E2%80%94_MoEF_Notification_2006\"><\/span>A. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) \u2014 MoEF Notification, 2006<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&amp;CC) has issued the EIA Notification, 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Schedule I to this Notification lists activities requiring environmental clearance (EC). Mining of minor minerals including ordinary earth is listed as a &#8220;B2&#8221; category project requiring EC from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) when the lease area exceeds 5 hectares (and &#8220;B1&#8221; above 25 hectares). However, this EIA requirement applies to mining operations for minor minerals in the commercial sense \u2014 not to incidental construction excavation. The EIA Notification itself excludes &#8220;excavation of earth for laying of foundations of buildings&#8221; from the category of mining operations requiring EC, where the excavated earth is not commercially exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"district-mineral-foundation-dmf\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_District_Mineral_Foundation_DMF_%E2%80%94_Section_9-B_MMDR_Act\"><\/span>B. District Mineral Foundation (DMF) \u2014 Section 9-B, MMDR Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015 introduced Section 9-B, requiring mining lease holders to contribute to the District Mineral Foundation for the welfare of persons affected by mining activities. The Allahabad High Court in a 2025 decision held that the DMF obligation is triggered by the grant of a mining lease \u2014 where no mining lease exists (as in the case of incidental foundation excavation), no DMF contribution is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"state-pollution-control-board-consent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_State_Pollution_Control_Board_Consent\"><\/span>C. State Pollution Control Board Consent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Construction projects above specified thresholds require Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. These consents govern emissions, effluents, and construction dust \u2014 but do not address royalty on excavated earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"planning-authority-development-permissions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"D_Planning_Authority_and_Development_Permissions\"><\/span>D. Planning Authority and Development Permissions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Under town planning and development control regulations \u2014 such as the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTPs), the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and municipal building byelaws \u2014 builders require sanctioned building plans and development permissions before commencing construction. These permissions sanction the construction activity as a whole, including the incidental foundation excavation. Courts have relied on the existence of valid development permissions as a factor supporting the characterisation of excavation as construction activity, not mining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"viii-practical-guidelines-for-builders-developers-and-contractors\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VIII_Practical_Guidelines_For_Builders_Developers_And_Contractors\"><\/span>VIII. Practical Guidelines For Builders, Developers, And Contractors<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on the judicial framework set out above, the following practical guidelines emerge for parties involved in construction activities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"documentation-and-record-keeping\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Documentation_And_Record-Keeping\"><\/span>A. Documentation And Record-Keeping<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Maintain complete records of the sanctioned building plan, development permission, commencement certificate, and any other planning authority approval \u2014 these demonstrate the legitimacy of the construction activity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Keep records (with photographs, site supervisor logs, and project engineer certifications) of the quantity of earth excavated and the precise manner in which it was redeployed \u2014 whether as foundation backfill, plinth fill, or site levelling.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If any portion of excavated earth is being disposed of off-site (e.g., because the project produces more earth than can be used on-site), document separately the quantum disposed of and the manner of disposal. Revenue authorities may legitimately levy royalty on the off-site portion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prepare and retain an affidavit or declaration by the project engineer\/site supervisor confirming that all excavated earth was used on-site and none was commercially sold or transported.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"response-to-revenue-authority-notices\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_Response_To_Revenue_Authority_Notices\"><\/span>B. Response To Revenue Authority Notices<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Upon receipt of a show-cause notice or royalty demand under the MMDR Act, state rules, or MLRC, respond promptly with a detailed reply citing:\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the Notification of February 3, 2000;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune, (2015) 12 SCC 736; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the relevant High Court decisions applicable in your jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In Maharashtra, additionally cite the proviso to Rule 46(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 \u2014 the legislative codification of the judicial exemption.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Specifically deny any commercial sale or off-site transport of excavated earth, and attach supporting documentation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If the authority insists on proceedings, promptly approach the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking interim stay. Courts have been consistently sympathetic to such petitions where the facts disclose on-site redeployment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"points-of-caution\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_Points_Of_Caution\"><\/span>C. Points Of Caution<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The exemption applies only to ordinary earth. If the excavation unearths sand, gravel, building stone, or other materials that independently qualify as minor minerals under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act or the state&#8217;s minor mineral list, those materials attract the full regulatory framework regardless of redeployment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where a basement or large-scale excavation produces earth substantially in excess of what can be absorbed on-site, the surplus \u2014 if sold or transported \u2014 will attract royalty on the surplus quantity. Careful project planning can minimize this exposure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For projects exceeding certain thresholds (large infrastructure, government contracts), consultation with the State Mining Department in advance is advisable to obtain a No-Objection or a written confirmation of exemption. This provides pre-emptive protection against subsequent enforcement action.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Environmental clearance requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006 must be independently verified for large projects, even where MMDR Act obligations do not arise.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table-of-key-cases-and-holdings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IX_Summary_Table_Of_Key_Cases_And_Holdings\"><\/span>IX. Summary Table Of Key Cases And Holdings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case Name &amp; Citation<\/th><th>Court \/ Year<\/th><th>Key Holding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Rashtriya Chemicals &amp; Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 Bombay 144<\/td><td>Bombay HC \/ 1993<\/td><td>Earth excavated during construction\/development on granted land is not a &#8220;mineral product&#8221;; blanket levy impermissible. (Approved by SC in 2014)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 12 SCC 736 (decided 3 Dec 2014)<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><td>LANDMARK: Purpose of excavation is decisive; earth excavated for foundation laying and redeployed on same site without commercial exploitation is NOT a minor mineral under the 2000 Notification. Royalty and penalty demands quashed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>BGR Energy System Ltd., Khaparkheda v. Tehsildar, Saoner &amp; Ors., (2018) 1 MhLJ 332<\/td><td>Bombay HC (Nagpur) \/ 2018<\/td><td>Principle extended to industrial\/energy infrastructure: earth from thermal power plant foundation pits, refilled on-site, not a minor mineral. Order levying royalty quashed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors.<\/td><td>Bombay HC \/ Dec 2021<\/td><td>Demand for royalty on 7,632 brass of earth from construction site quashed; authority must factually inquire into end-use before levying royalty.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>M\/s. Royale Urbanspace &amp; Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Anr.<\/td><td>Bombay HC \/ 2022<\/td><td>Rs. 6+ crore demand quashed; excavated earth redeployed in development of the same plot attracts no royalty under amended Rule 46 of MME Rules, 2015.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Flagship Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors.<\/td><td>Bombay HC<\/td><td>Rs. 24.15 crore demand quashed; same principle applied to large residential project.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Allahabad HC decisions on UP Minor Minerals Rules, 1963<\/td><td>Allahabad HC \/ 2015\u20132023<\/td><td>Consistent application of Promoters &amp; Builders; UP authorities directed to conduct factual inquiry into end-use before levying royalty; demands quashed where no commercial exploitation established.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judicial architecture on the question of royalty and permits for ordinary earth excavated during building foundation work is remarkably coherent and consistent. From the Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark ruling in Promoters &amp; Builders Association of Pune (2015) 12 SCC 736 \u2014 itself building on the earlier Bombay High Court wisdom in Rashtriya Chemicals (AIR 1993 Bombay 144) \u2014 to a steady stream of High Court decisions in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, the law is settled as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-position-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Settled_Legal_Position\"><\/span>Settled Legal Position<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Ordinary earth is a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; only when it satisfies the purposive criterion of the Central Gazette Notification dated February 3, 2000 (GSR 95(E)) \u2014 i.e., when it is used for filling or levelling in construction of embankments, roads, railways, or buildings in a commercial or public-works sense.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Excavation of ordinary earth incidental to foundation-laying (masonry or RCC) \u2014 where the earth is redeployed on the same plot without commercial exploitation \u2014 does not constitute &#8220;mining operations&#8221; within Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act and does not produce a &#8220;minor mineral&#8221; within the Notification of 2000.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accordingly, no mining lease, quarry permit, or royalty payment is required or payable in respect of such on-site foundation excavations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Maharashtra has legislatively confirmed this position through the 2015 amendment to Rule 46 of its Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, while Uttar Pradesh courts have applied the same principle under the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"determinative-test\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Determinative_Test_Applied_by_Courts\"><\/span>Determinative Test Applied by Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The determinative enquiry in every case is the end-use of the excavated earth: if it is redeployed on-site without commercial sale or transport, no regulatory obligation arises; if it is commercially exploited or transported off-site, the full MMDR Act framework applies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"practical-guidance-builders\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_Guidance_for_Builders_and_Developers\"><\/span>Practical Guidance for Builders and Developers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Builders, developers, contractors, and infrastructure companies should familiarise themselves with this settled legal position, document their construction activities carefully to demonstrate on-site redeployment, and firmly resist unjustified royalty and penalty demands by revenue authorities. Where such demands are nonetheless issued, prompt legal action \u2014 backed by the consistent line of Supreme Court and High Court authority \u2014 offers strong prospects of relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"table-statutes-notifications-rules\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"XI_Table_Of_Statutes_Notifications_And_Rules\"><\/span>XI. Table Of Statutes, Notifications, And Rules<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Instrument<\/th><th>Key Provision(s) Discussed<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<\/td><td>Sections 3(d) [mining operations], 3(e) [minor minerals], 4 [prohibition without lease], 9 [royalty], 9-B [DMF], 15 [State powers for minor minerals], 21 [penalties]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Central Gazette Notification No. GSR 95(E), dated February 3, 2000 (Ministry of Mines)<\/td><td>Declares ordinary earth used for filling\/levelling in embankments, roads, railways, buildings to be a minor mineral \u2014 with the inbuilt end-use restriction<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mines Act, 1952<\/td><td>Section 2(j) [definition of &#8220;mine&#8221;] \u2014 read with MMDR Act to define scope of &#8220;mining&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966<\/td><td>Section 48(7) \u2014 penalty for unauthorised extraction of minerals<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013<\/td><td>Rule 46 \u2014 royalty payable by lessees on minor minerals<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (D&amp;R) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 (Notification dated May 11, 2015)<\/td><td>Proviso to Rule 46(a)(i) \u2014 no royalty on earth extracted during development of plot and utilized on same plot<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (D&amp;R) (Amendment) Rules, 2017<\/td><td>Procedure for excavation during plot development \u2014 advance information to Collector, royalty deposit<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (as amended)<\/td><td>Rule 2(5) [mining operations], First Schedule [royalty rates for ordinary earth]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966<\/td><td>Sections 31 [development plans], 2(7) [definition of &#8220;development&#8221; including engineering\/mining operations]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006<\/td><td>Environmental clearance requirements for mining of minor minerals \u2014 not applicable to incidental construction excavation with on-site redeployment<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Analysis &amp; Commentary Judicial Insights from the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Executive Summary This article examines the settled judicial position under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and its cognate state rules regarding excavation of ordinary earth incidental<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":16641,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[93],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-16615","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-property-laws","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/mmdr-act-ordinary-earth-excavation-supreme-court-legalserviceindia.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16615\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}