TL;DR: India’s mining-fiscal debate is shifting from who collects mineral revenue to who controls and benefits from it. DMF collections have reached ₹1.31 lakh crore, but only about 53% has been spent. Funds are heavily concentrated in a few mineral-rich states, while project execution remains uneven. With DMF accruals projected to grow sharply, the 2026 MMDR changes could reshape both state fiscal autonomy and how mining wealth reaches affected communities.

Context

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 10 August 2026, passed there on 12 August 2026, and cleared the Rajya Sabha on 13 August 2026, without much debate. It now awaits presidential assent. The Bill amends the MMDR Act, 1957, to bring “mineral-bearing land” under Union control and to bar states from imposing any tax, cess or levy on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land except as the Centre allows. It also invalidates, retrospectively, any state mining dues that were outstanding before the Bill’s commencement, though amounts already collected won’t be refunded.

The trigger was the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling in Mineral Area Development Authority vs Steel Authority of India, which held that royalty is not a tax and that states can tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land, with dues recoverable retrospectively from 1 April 2005. The Centre argues that the resulting patchwork of state levies, different types of taxes, cesses and fees on mining, has made costs unpredictable and discouraged investment. The states argue that this is more than a mining reform, it is a challenge to the fiscal autonomy of the states.

In this context, we shall look at the fiscal dimensions of mining for states, examining mining revenues, District Mineral Foundation (DMF) collections and expenditures, projects funded through these funds, and other related indicators. The aim is to understand the scale of these revenues and what could be at stake for state finances if the proposed changes take effect.

Who compiles this data?

Data on District Mineral Foundation (DMF) collections and mineral royalty is compiled and published by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, through replies to Parliament questions, the National DMF Portal, and periodic press releases.

Where can I download clean & structured data related to this?

Clean, structured, and ready-to-use collection of datasets on the Mining sector, including accidents, employment, inspections and violations, is available on Dataful.

Key Insights

DMF collections have grown nearly 30-fold in a decade, but spending hasn’t kept pace

District Mineral Foundations (DMFs) were introduced in 2015 through an amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with the aim of directing mining revenues towards communities bearing the social and environmental costs of extraction. The framework requires a DMF to function as a non-profit trust in every mining district, with particular emphasis on local participation and the rights of tribal and forest-dependent communities under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, PESA and the Forest Rights Act. DMFs are now present in 620 districts across 23 states and are financed through mandatory payments by mining leaseholders, linked to the royalty payable on their leases. In September 2015, the Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana (PMKKKY) was introduced to guide the use of these funds towards development and welfare interventions in mining-affected areas.

Cumulative District Mineral Foundation (DMF) accrual across India stood at ₹1,31,067 crore as of June 2026, up from ₹23,606 crore as of November 2018, and ₹3,589 crore as of October 2016. Yet only around 53% of that (₹69,884 crore) has actually been spent, even though 83% has been formally “allocated” to projects, as of June 2026. This gap between money credited to mining districts and money reaching people on the ground is the scheme’s most persistent weakness, and it means the fiscal fight over who collects this money is arguably outrunning the more basic problem of who benefits from it.

Three states- Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, hold 57% of India’s entire DMF pool

Odisha alone accounts for ₹37,763 crore in DMF accrual, followed by Chhattisgarh (₹18,994 crore) and Jharkhand (₹18,252 crore), together more than half the national total of ₹1.31 lakh crore. The next tier of states trails by a wide margin: Rajasthan (₹12,431 crore), Madhya Pradesh (₹9,344 crore), Maharashtra (₹8,161 crore), Telangana (₹7,089 crore) and Karnataka (₹6,920 crore) each hold roughly a third to a fifth of what Odisha does on its own.

The concentration goes even deeper at the district level: just 22 districts, each holding over ₹1,000 crore, account for more than 65% of all DMF funds in the country, and Odisha alone accounts for several of the top entries, Kendujhar (₹14,990 crore) and Korba (₹6,816 crore), both iron-ore belts, followed by Singrauli at ₹6,712 crore and Dantewada at ₹4,783 crore. Chhattisgarh’s share is concentrated in Korba and Dantewada, and Madhya Pradesh’s largely in Singrauli, with all of them notably being official “aspirational districts” with high poverty and tribal population shares.

This lopsided geography explains why the political pushback against the Bill has been loudest in Odisha and Jharkhand specifically, rather than spread evenly across mineral-rich states: Odisha isn’t just a stakeholder, it is, by a clear margin, the stakeholder, holding roughly double Chhattisgarh’s or Jharkhand’s share and nearly triple Rajasthan’s. A national rule curbing state taxation power on mineral-bearing land has an asymmetric fiscal impact, concentrated in Odisha’s iron-ore districts far more than anywhere else in the country. And with the invalidation of outstanding demands that were not recovered, Odisha and Jharkhand are expected to lose significant revenue they were entitled to, after the Supreme Court Judgement in 2024.

Education and infrastructure together claim nearly half of every rupee allocated

Of the ₹1,08,072 crore sanctioned to DMF projects nationally, Education alone accounts for ₹22,490 crore (20.8%), the single largest sector (among the high priority sector), followed by Physical infrastructure at ₹33,512 crore (31.0%), making these two sectors together responsible for just over half of all sanctioned DMF money in the country. Drinking water supply (₹14,097 crore, 13%) and Health (₹11,421 crore, 10.6%) follow in the high-priority sector. By contrast, sectors like Housing (₹40 crore), Animal Husbandry (₹73 crore) and Welfare of the aged and disabled (₹296 crore), despite being formally classified “high priority”, receive miniscule worth of the total pool, suggesting the “high priority” label hasn’t translated into proportionate funding across all mandated sectors.

Further, “Other Priority” works have been sanctioned ₹40,557 crore, 37.5% of the total ₹1,08,072 crore sanctioned, well above the 30% ceiling the PMKKKY framework sets for this category. Physical infrastructure alone makes up over 80% of all “Other Priority” sanctions, meaning that when states dip into the non-welfare bucket, they are doing so almost entirely for roads, buildings and similar infrastructure rather than irrigation, energy or environmental works, which collectively account for barely 20% of that bucket.

Strong completion in some states, but a sizeable pipeline remains unfinished

Across India, 62% of DMF projects have been completed, while 16% remain ongoing, 9% have been scrapped or cancelled and 10% are yet to start. Implementation, however, varies considerably across major mining states. Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand report completion rates of 73% and 72%, respectively. Odisha, by contrast, has completed 61% of its projects, with another 21% ongoing and 15% yet to begin. These differences point to an important implementation challenge: the effectiveness of DMF is shaped not only by how much money is collected, but by the ability of states and districts to plan, execute and sustain projects that translate those funds into tangible benefits for mining-affected communities.

Why does it matter?

The DMF debate is ultimately about who controls the benefits of India’s mineral wealth. Independent projections by iFOREST estimate that DMF collections could reach ₹2.5–3 lakh crore over the next decade, around 2.5–3 times the amount accumulated in the previous decade, as coal, iron ore and critical-mineral production expands. Yet the debate over the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026 has largely focused on who gets to collect mining revenue, the Centre or the states. DMF data points to a quieter but equally important question: whether the revenues already accruing to states are actually reaching the communities they are meant to benefit. The stakes, therefore, go beyond the size of the fund. They concern who sets the rules for raising, governing and spending an increasingly valuable revenue stream, and, ultimately, whether mineral-rich communities see a meaningful share of the wealth extracted from their lands.

Key Numbers

• ₹1,08,658 crore — Total DMF funds allocated to projects nationally, against ₹1,31,067 crore collected.

• ₹69,884 crore — Total DMF funds actually spent nationally; it is 64% of sanctioned funds, 53% of total collection.

• 31% — Share of all sanctioned DMF money nationally that has gone to physical infrastructure alone, the single largest sector, and also to the other priority sector.

• 30.6% — Share of Rajasthan’s sanctioned DMF projects yet to start, the highest among major mining states.