MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
Regular-article-logo Saturday, 14 February 2026

STREET LEGAL 01-08-2007

Digging up trouble The lost land Ride at your own risk

The Telegraph Online Published 01.08.07, 12:00 AM

Digging up trouble

nA man purchased nine acres of land in Mussoorie on which he planned to build a hotel. While digging the foundation, a number of boulders were excavated. These were used for levelling the land. When the district magistrate (DM) came to know of this, he treated the digging up of the boulders as a “mining operation” and asked the man to pay the state Rs 7,13,835 as royalty as well as Rs 1,000 as fine. Failing to make the DM see reason, the landowner approached the court. Uttaranchal High Court held that, under mining laws, only a person who holds a mining lease is liable to pay royalty for carrying out mining. A man who excavates boulders on his own property while digging for some other work cannot be said to carry out mining operations, the court ruled (Jaiprakash Associates Ltd vs State of Uttaranchal).

The lost land

nA woman found that the piece of land she had purchased was actually smaller than the area specified in the sale deed. She took the seller to court, demanding that he make up for the shortfall by handing over a part of the adjoining plot that he owned. The trial court ruled that the seller should pay her the cost of the missing area. The buyer then appealed to the high court that she be given land instead of money. Punjab and Haryana High Court held that since the sale deed did not mention the boundaries incorrectly, the seller wasn’t obligated to part with more land. It, however, ruled that the seller should pay her the cost of the land along with six per cent interest on the amount, calculated from the date of the sale (Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur and others vs Kuljinder Singh and others).

Ride at your own risk

nA man claimed compensation from the insurance company after a pillion rider fell off his motorcycle and died. The insurance firm refused him payment, contending that the insurance policy only covered damage to the vehicle (or caused by it) and the driver, not a pillion rider. Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the insurance company had no liability towards the pillion rider as the policy was a statutory one and did not cover injury or death to a pillion rider (S.Jayamma and others vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others).

SOLON

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT