Question

The MMDRA enacted by Parliament grants the Union Government the:

• A. Right to obtain ownership of land containing mineral wealth
• B. Power to exclude the State Government from ownership rights of land containing mineral wealth
• C. Right to regulate the grant of mining rights
• D. Right to impose taxes on all mining activities
• A. i is correct
• B. ii and iii are correct
• C. i and iii are correct
• D. None of the above is correct
• A. Assertion that land is partly owned by government
• B. Power of eminent domain
• C. Assertion of a proprietary right
• D. Assertion of a sovereign right
• A. All are correct
• B. Only i is correct
• C. Only i and ii are correct
• D. Only i and iii are correct
• A. Confiscated without payment
• B. Repatriated back to the Crown
• C. Vested in the Union of India
• D. Vested in the Union of India and the States
• A. In the Union of India
• B. In the respective States having a shoreline
• C. In the Union and all States in the Union
• D. Are treated as ‘res commune’
• A. iv is correct
• B. ii and iii are correct
• C. i and iii are correct
• D. None of the above is correct
• A. Includes the right to carry on mining operation in the surface of the land
• B. Includes the right to carry on mining operation in the sub-soil of the land
• C. Includes the right to extract the specified quantity of the minerals found therein, to remove and appropriate that mineral
• D. All the above
• A. In all lands whether privately, community, or publicly owned
• B. Only in lands owned by the Union Government
• C. Only in lands owned by the State Government
• D. Only where sustainability is threatened
• A. Escheat
• B. Lapse
• C. Bona vacantia
• D. All the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Place MMDRA in the constitutional scheme.
Parliament legislates on “regulation of mines and mineral development” under List I Entry 54 when it declares such regulation to be expedient in public interest. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDRA) is that central law. 
Step 2: What the Act actually does.
MMDRA creates a regulatory framework for prospecting licences, mining leases and permits (who may mine, on what terms, central–state coordination, etc.). It is about grant/conditions of mining rights, not automatic transfer of ownership in land/minerals. 
Step 3: Eliminate distractors using T Jacob.
(A) No provision in MMDRA vests ownership of land/minerals in the Union.
(B) The Act does not oust States from proprietary rights; it only regulates.
(D) Taxing power is a different constitutional head (e.g., List II Entry 50; List I Entry 84 for duties). MMDRA is not a taxation statute. \[ \boxed{ \text{Right to regulate the grant of mining rights (C)} } \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Core holding in Thressiamma Jacob.
The Court rejected the High Court’s view that payment of seigniorage/extra tax proved State ownership. It drew the imperium (tax power) vs dominium (proprietary right) distinction: taxing minerals does not make the State their owner. 
Step 2: Examine each statement.
(i) Incorrect. The Court did not say all subsoil rights are public commons in State trust. Private ownership of subsoil is recognised unless law transfers it.
(ii) Correct. The Court expressly noted there is no blanket rule vesting all minerals/subsoil in the State.
(iii) Correct. The legislature can by law divest/limit private subsoil rights (subject to the Constitution) — e.g., specific vesting/statutory reservation. \[ \boxed{ \text{ii and iii are correct (B)} } \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Apply the imperium–dominium distinction from T Jacob.
Imperium = sovereign authority to govern (includes taxation).
Dominium = ownership/proprietary title. 
Step 2: Classify “seigniorage/extra tax on minerals”.
A levy that arises upon extraction is an excise/tax — an exercise of imperium, not proof of dominium. Therefore it does not imply State ownership (eliminates A and C). 
Step 3: Distinguish eminent domain.
(B) is about compulsory acquisition with compensation — not mere taxation. \[ \boxed{ \text{Sovereign right (D)} } \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Start with the traditional maxim.
Common law once stated ownership “usque ad coelum et ad inferos” (up to the heavens and down to the depths). Statement (ii) reflects that old absolute claim. 
Step 2: Modern limitation in India.
Statutes like MMDRA regulate/limit subsoil rights; certain minerals or the entire activity of mining require licences/leases, and laws may reserve/vest particular minerals to the State. Thus, an owner retains subsoil rights subject to such statutory carve-outs. 
Step 3: Decide each statement.
(i) Correct — one may work on the surface (subject to other laws).
(ii) Not fully correct today — the “centre of the earth” claim is curtailed by statute and public law limits.
(iii) Correct in substance — entitlement below the surface stands except to the extent excluded/regulated by MMDRA and other laws. \[ \boxed{ \text{Only i and iii (D)} } \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Cite the constitutional provision.
Article 294 provides for succession to property, assets, rights and liabilities of the Government of India and the Provinces. Upon commencement of the Constitution:
Property used for Union purposes vested in the Union of India; and
Property used for provincial purposes vested in the respective States.
Step 2: Eliminate wrong answers.
(A) No confiscation provision. (B) No “repatriation” to the Crown. (C) is incomplete — ignores vesting in States.
Correct Option - D

Answer 6

Step 1: Identify the relevant constitutional provision.
Article 297 of the Constitution declares that all lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone vest in the Union of India.
Step 2: Scope of Article 297.
It covers: Territorial waters (12 nautical miles from baseline),
Continental shelf,
Exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles for resource rights).
Step 3: Eliminate incorrect options.
(B) Incorrect — States do not own offshore minerals.
(C) Incorrect — vesting is exclusively in Union, not concurrent.
(D) Incorrect — res commune means common to all mankind (international waters), not within Indian territorial waters. \[ \boxed{\text{In the Union of India (A)}} \]

Answer 7

Step 1: Special land ownership in Meghalaya.
In Meghalaya, unlike most States, a large part of land is not owned by the State Government — it is privately or community owned, protected under the Sixth Schedule. 
Step 2: Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The Court held: Landowners (private or community) retain ownership of land and subsoil minerals, unless law says otherwise.
They can lease land for mining operations — BUT mining is a regulated activity under MMDRA.
Any such lease must comply with MMDRA — requiring prior approval of the Central Government through the State Government.
Step 3: Assess each statement.
(i) Correct — Owners can lease their land for mining.
(ii) Incorrect — The State Government is not the sole grantor of leases in private/community lands; owners have rights.
(iii) Correct — Prior central approval via State Government is needed under MMDRA for mining leases. \[ \boxed{\text{i and iii are correct (C)}} \]

Answer 8

Step 1: Understanding Section 105.
A lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property, which may include surface rights, sub-soil rights, and rights to extract resources, if expressly included in the lease terms. 
Step 2: Mining and subsoil.
If the lease is for mining, it includes:
Surface mining rights.
Sub-soil mineral extraction rights.
Rights to remove and appropriate extracted minerals.
Step 3: Elimination.
Since each of (A), (B), and (C) is correct, the comprehensive answer is (D) — All the above. \[ \boxed{\text{All the above (D)}} \]

Answer 9

Step 1: Applicability of environmental clearance.
Under the Environment (Protection) Act and the EIA Notification, 2006, certain activities — including coal mining beyond a specified capacity — require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from MoEF&CC.

Step 2: Ownership is irrelevant.
The law applies irrespective of whether the land is private, community-owned, or state-owned — the clearance is based on environmental impact, not ownership.

Step 3: Eliminate options.
(B) and (C) are wrong because they limit EC only to government-owned lands.
(D) is wrong because sustainability assessment is inherent in EC, not an optional trigger.

\[ \boxed{\text{In all lands whether privately, community, or publicly owned (A)}} \]

Answer 10

Step 1: Definitions.
Escheat — Property reverts to the State in absence of legal heirs.
Lapse — End of rights due to expiry of the grant or failure of conditions.
Bona vacantia — Ownerless property that passes to the State.
Step 2: Constitutional basis.
Article 296 of the Constitution provides that such property shall vest in the Union or State where it is located. 
Step 3: Comprehensive coverage.
Since the question covers all three scenarios, the answer is (D) — All the above. \[ \boxed{\text{All the above (D)}} \]