..1..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

WRIT PETITION No. 3601 of 2021

M.P. BRICKS COMPANY

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WITH

WRIT PETITION No. 3989 of 2021

SATISH JEEVTHANI AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 4612 of 2021

AMIT KHATRI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8432 of 2021

RAMESH AZAD

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 29036 of 2021

M/S BALAJI STONE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7540 of 2022

ANKIT GAUTAM

Versus

..2..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8852 of 2022

KHAJURAHO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THROUGH

ITS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8908 of 2022

AJAY KUMAR JAIN

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 11326 of 2022

M/S SHREE GANESH GRANITE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 12994 of 2022

RAGHAVENDRA SINGH BHADORIYA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13031 of 2022

MANJULATA RAJPUT

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 22343 of 2022

VIVEK TIWARI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 28800 of 2022

DIVYA SHUKLA

Versus

..3..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 29504 of 2022

D.G. MINING PVT. LTD.

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 10292 of 2023

HIRA POWER AND STEELS LIMITED

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17878 of 2023

MAHARAJA STONE CRUSHER THROUGH PARTNER

ABDUL GAFFAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 23517 of 2023

MANISH KUMAR PUROHIT AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 30602 of 2023

M/S KISAN EXPORTS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 30604 of 2023

M/S KISAN EXPORTS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15958 of 2024

SARASWATI STONE CRUSHER

Versus

..4..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 26838 of 2024

M/S S.B GRANITES LIMITED

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 27180 of 2024

VIBHA SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 35707 of 2024

SMT SAHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1232 of 2025

DEVENDRA KUMAR SUKHWANI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7322 of 2025

PARMANAD PATIDAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 41601 of 2025

ASHOK CHOPRA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 43275 of 2025

MS KHANDELWAL METAL WORK THROUGH VASANT

Versus

..5..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 47658 of 2025

PANKAJ MISHRA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 47967 of 2025

KISHAN TRIPATHI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam, S

hri Naman

Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Jubin Prasad,

Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari,

Shri Anshuman Singh,

Shri Shreyash Pandit,

Shri Ranjeet Dwivedi, Shri

Yash

Nitin Nasery, Shri Priyan Shrivstava, Shri Shoeb Hasan Khan, , Shri Geet Sukhwani,

Shri Shivam Chhalotre, Shri Pratap Tarun Singh, and Shri Navneet Shukla -

Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi Deputy Advocate General along with Shri

Ritwik Parashar, Government Advocate for respondents/State

.

Reserved on - 13.01.2026

Pronounced on - .01.2026

ORDER

Per: Pradeep Mittal,

As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are

heard and decided concomitantly by this common order.

References to annexures and documents are taken from W.P. No.

3601 of 2021 for convenience.

1. The petitioner is challenging the order Annexure P/1 in

which the Mining Officer, Hoshangabad has passed order of

..6..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

recovery of dead rent during the period between 2013-14 principle

of which has been valued at Rs.4,60,903/-.

2. That facts leading to the filing of the present petition are

that, the petitioner had applied for renewal of quarry lease

on 25.06.2012 before the respondent no.3 and the same was

granted in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 for a period of 10

years, thereafter the petitioner applied for environment clearance

before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the

same was granted in favour of petitioner on 25.11.2014. The

petitioner was not granted Bhu Pravesh as per provision of M.P.

Land Revenue Code after due compliance of all mandatory

condition mentioned in the Letter of intent. After due approvals

granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner with the intention

of operating the QUARRLY LEASE entered the land but in the

meanwhile the National Green Tribunal has stayed the operation of

mining lease in which environment clearance is not granted. The

respondent no.3 has enumerated the condition that the petitioner is

restricted to start the work without environment clearance.

However, even though he was unable to operate the mining work

in the leased area he has paid the dead rent for the period 2012

to 2013. The respondent no.3 has issued the demand notice of dead

rent for the period of 13.07.2013 to 13.07.2014 vide order dated

12.03.2015. The possession could have been handed over to the

petitioner and prior to starting the mining work the respondent no.3

has demanded the dead rent which is against the order passed by

the Central Government whereby the Government of India vide

Annexure P/ 6 issued the direction to all States directing that

premature determination of dead rent when lessee was not legally

..7..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

allowed to carry out mining activities, the State Government could

not demand arrears of dead rent for intervening period. The

petitioner against the order passed by the Collector approached the

Appellate Authority U/s 57 of Rules 1996 wherein the said order of

the Collector was affirmed by the respondent nos.1 and 2. The

respondent No.3 has overlooked the clarification issued by the

Central Government in the year 2001 whereby the Central

Government has clarified that the State Government could

not demand the dead rent if the leasee has not operated the mines.

The respondent no.3 has completely overlooked the notification

and dismissed the claim of the petitioner without applying the

mind. The order of recovery of dead rent is arbitrary and

unlawful and has been issued without application of mind. The

petitioner has questioned the same before the Appellate Authority

u/s 57 of Rules of 1996 and after facing rejection the petitioner has

moved before the State Government and the State Government vide

order dated 06.04.2018 has rejected the contentions raised by the

petitioner qua exemption from the dead rent. The petitioner was

unable to operate the mining work due to stay order passed by

National Green Tribunal. The petitioner is suffering by the inaction

on the part of respondents and petitioner is not at any fault as the

condition for delaying is beyond the control of the petitioner. The

impugned order dated 12.03.2015 and 24.04.2018 in which a

demand has been raised for recovery of dead rent between the

period 2013 to 2014 is bad in law as provision of recovery of dead

rent persists only after the starting the work. The impugned order

dated 06.01.2018 is issued in total disregard in overlooking the

clarification issued by Government of India.

..8..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

3. The submission of the respondent is that, in the present

petition, the petitioner has heavily relied upon the communication

made by the Central Government dated 09.10.2001 (Annexure P/6)

and has claimed that, the Central Government had already

clarified the aforesaid aspect but still the State Government

is insisting upon to pay the dead rent. The communication

(Annexure P/6) also deals with the aspect that, if the lessee did not

have the physical possession over the leased area despite being

lease awarded to him, in these circumstances the dead rent could

not have been charged. The facts and circumstances of the present

case are different. As indicated hereinabove that, if at all the grant

of the petitioner is the fresh grant and first time the petitioner is

applying for environmental clearance / entrance permission to the

land then the case would have been different. But in the present

case if under Rule 17 of the concerned rules, if the application is

made prior to one year of lapse then the case of the petitioner

comes under the automatic renewal at that relevant point of time

and the same was exactly done in the present case. That, in these

circumstances, the present case of the petitioner falls under that

category of deemed renewal, in these circumstances, the plea taken

by the petitioner that due to the fault of the State Government, the

petitioner could not have operated, is incorrect, infact it is the duty

upon the petitioner to get all the clearances in time as he himself

has applied for renewal prior to one year of elapsing the

lease. That, in these circumstances, the present petition filed

by the petitioner is misconceived and the same deserves to be

dismissed.

..9..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The crucial

question for the consideration in all petitions is:-

“Whether dead rent is payable after the

grant of a quarry lease when the lease could not

be operated due to non-handover of possession

of the leased property or because the requisite

permissions for operating the lease were not

granted by the competent authority?”

5. A bare perusal of Annexure R/1 clearly indicates that,

the petitioner has raised the contention that, in the absence of

environmental clearance the lease could not have been operated, in

the circumstances, his dead rent may be exempted. The authorities

while considering the grievance of the petitioner has

also specifically indicated that, under the Rules of 1996 in the case

of renewal, there is no provision of granting exemption of dead

rent. The aforesaid demand orders which have been passed by the

authorities in their respective jurisdiction are just and proper. The

petitioner was given notice for payment of dead rent way back on

13.09.2014 and thereafter the Director, Geology and Mining has

also endorsed the aforesaid aspect on 12.03.2015, as is clear from

Annexure R/2 and R/3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the

circular dated 09.10.2001 issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, submits that

even after execution of the lease, the petitioner could not

commence mining operations and was unable to excavate or utilize

the leased property. Consequently, the lease was terminated, and

the State Government directed the lessee to pay dead rent along

with interest thereon as a penalty. The Court held that, in such

..10..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

circumstances, the Mining Department was not entitled to receive

any dead rent for the leased area for the period up to the

cancellation of the lease. It has thus been held by the High Courts

that where the petitioner could not operate the area covered under

the mining lease due to non-handover of physical possession of the

lease area, mere execution of the lease does not give rise to liability

to pay dead rent. Further, in cases where the lessee ceased to have

legal rights such as upon termination of the lease or rejection of an

application for renewal even if the lease is subsequently restored by

a competent authority, dead rent is not payable for the period

during which the lessee had neither physical nor legal possession of

the leased area.

7. The petitioner has further relied upon the letter dated

09.10.2001 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel

and Mines, addressed to all the States, regarding the orders passed

by the Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts on the issue of

payment of dead rent. The said document also does not support the

petitioner’s case, as Section 9A of the MMDR Act, 1957 was

amended in the year 2016, and the State of Madhya Pradesh has

also framed statutory rules governing royalty and dead rent

pursuant to the said amendment.

8. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the

judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Chhoga Ram

Mundoliya v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported as 1992

SCC OnLine Raj 612, and of the Karnataka High Court dated

20.07.1990 passed in W.P. No. 38462 of 1989 (M/s Jyoti Brothers

v. State of Karnataka and others). In the aforesaid judgments, it

..11..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

was held that when the holder of a mining lease becomes liable to

pay royalty on the minerals removed or consumed from the lease

area, he is required to pay either royalty or dead rent, whichever is

higher. However, the findings recorded in the above judgments do

not support the case of the petitioner, as the MMDR Act was

amended in the year 2016, and Section 9A was inserted by Act No.

25 of 2016 with effect from 06.05.2016. In view of the said

amendment, the ratio laid down in the above judgments is no

longer applicable to the present case.

9. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the order dated

01.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8953 of 2022 (Ashish

Pandey v. State of M.P. and others), wherein it was held that

since the petitioner had not excavated any mineral for the last four

years and had not earned any income therefrom, the demand raised

was unreasonable, harsh, and unjustified. However, the facts of the

said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present

case. In the said judgment, it was also held that for the period

2019–2022, there was no subsisting lease. Although the Director,

by order dated 12.01.2022, renewed the lease retrospectively with

effect from 01.01.2019, this Court held that there was no lease in

existence during the period 2019–2022, and therefore, the

petitioner therein was not liable to pay dead rent. Accordingly, the

aforesaid judgment does not assist the case of the present petitioner.

10. The petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Trivedi' and Sons and

others Vs. State of Gujrat and others 1986 (Supp) SCC 20 in

para 43 to 45 wherein it has been held as under:

..12..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

43. The Gujarat High Court in Sorabji case

held that the intention of Parliament in enacting

Section 15(1) was not to clothe the State

Governments with power to impose any financial

liability upon the lessee but only to give them the

power to prescribe conditions for regulating the

grant of leases other than conditions relating to

financial liability and that the power to prescribe

conditions relating to financial liability of a lessee

were to be found only in sub-section (3) of Section

15. In order to ascertain this intention attributed

by it to Parliament, the Gujarat High Court relied

upon the provisions of Section 9-A and sub-

section (3) of Section 15. The same view was

taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. V.

Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and another, AIR 1978

AP453.

44. We find that the reliance placed by the

Gujarat High Court in Sorabji case, which is one

of the two judgments of that High Court

challenged before us, and the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in M. V. Subba Rao case on sub-

section (3) of Section 15 and Section 9-A in order

to ascertain the intention of Parliament is

misplaced. Though sub-section (3) was inserted in

Section 15 with retrospective effect by the

Amendment Act of 1972, until it was so inserted it

was not before the courts when they came to

construe the scope of the rule-making power of

the State Governments under Section 15(1) and

even without sub-section (3) being before the

courts, various High Courts have held that the

State Governments’ power to charge royalty is to

be found in the rule- making power conferred by

Section 15(1). The Patna High Court in Ladu Mal

v. State of Bihar and others AIR1965 Patna 491,

..13..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Banku Bihari

Saha v. State Government of M.P. and others.

AIR1969 MP210, the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in Shanti Saroop Sharma v. State of Punjab

and others AIR 1969 Punj. and Har. 79 and M/s

Amar Singh Modi Lal v. State of Haryana and

others AIR 1972 Punj. And Har. 356 and the

Rajasthan High Court in M/s Brimco Bricks,

Bharatpur v. State of Rajasthan and another AIR

1972 Raj. 145 have all taken this view. These

were all cases prior to the Amendment Act of

1972 when sub-section (3) of Section 15 was not

then on the statute book. After the enactment of

the Amendment Act of 1972, the Allahabad High

Court in Sheo Varan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR

1980 A;;. 92 has held that the power of the State

Governments to charge royalty and dead rent is to

be found only in Section 15(1). The Rajasthan

High Court in Bal Mukand Arora v. State of

Rajasthan and others AIR 1981 Raj. 95 has also

taken the same view, disagreeing with the view

taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. V.

Subba Rao case.

45. A proper reading of sub-section (3) of

Section 15 shows that it does not confer any

power upon the State Governments to make rules

with respect to royalty. Royalty is payable by the

holder of a quarry lease or mining lease or other

mineral concession granted under rules made

under sub-section (1) of Section 15. What sub-

section (3) does is to make such holder liable to

pay royalty in respect of minor minerals removed

or consumed not only by him but also by his

agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-

lessee. It thus casts a vicarious liability upon such

holder to pay royalty in respect of the acts of

..14..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

persons other than himself. The very fact that

under sub-section (3) the liability of such holder is

to pay royalty “at the rate prescribed for the time

being in the rules framed by the State Government

in respect of minor minerals” shows that the

prescribing of the rate of royalty in respect of

minor minerals is to be done under the rule-

making power of the State Governments which is

to be found in sub-section (1) of Section 15. Yet

another purpose of enacting sub-section (3) is to

be found in the proviso to that sub-section which

prohibits the State Government from enhancing

the rate of royalty in respect of any minor mineral

for more than once during any period of four

years. If the reliance placed by the Gujarat and

the Andhra Pradesh High Courts on sub-section

(3) of Section 15 in order to ascertain the

intention of Parliament was misplaced, their

reliance upon Section 9-A was even more

misplaced. Section 9-A was inserted in the 1957

Act by the Amendment Act of 1972 but it was not

inserted with retrospective effect. It was,

therefore, not there when Section 15(1) was

placed upon the statute book while enacting the

1957 Act. Section 9-A was enacted with a two-

fold purpose. It cast a liability upon the holder of

a mining lease whether granted before or after

the commencement of the 1972 Act, that is,

either before or after September, 12, 1972, to pay

to the State Government dead rent at the rates

specified for the time being in the Third

Schedule to the 1957 Act “notwithstanding

anything contained in the instrument of lease or

in any other law for the time being in force”. The

purpose of inserting Section 9-A in the 1957 Act,

as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons

..15..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

to Legislative Bill 83 of 1972, was to make a

“provision of a statutory basis for calculation of

dead rent”. Section 9-A also provides that the

liability of the lessee would be to pay either

royalty or dead rent, whichever is greater, thus

embodying in the Act what was contained in the

proviso to clause (c) of Rule 27 of the Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Section 9-A was

inserted also with a view to prohibit the Central

Government from enhancing the rate of dead rent

more than once during any period of four years. It

is pertinent to note that by the Amendment Act of

1972 Section 9 was also amended. While under

the original sub-section (1) of Section 9 the

liability of the holder of a mining lease was only

to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed

by him, after the amendment he is made liable to

pay royalty in respect of any mineral “removed or

consumed by him or by his agent, manager,

employee, contractor or sub-lessee”. By the

Amendment Act of 1972 the power of the Central

Government to amend by notification the Second

Schedule which specifies the rate of royalty was

also curtailed by inserting a proviso to Section

9(3) in order to provide that the Central

Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty

in respect of any mineral more than once during

any period of four years. The amendments made

by the Amendment Act of 1972 have, therefore, no

relevance for ascertaining the scope of the rule-

making power of the State Governments under

Section 15(1).

11. Regarding the issue involved in these petitions, it is

apposite to consider the legal provisions. Section 15(3) of the

..16..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is as

under:-

“15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect

of minor minerals

*** *** ***.

(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other

mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-

section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more

in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him

or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-

lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules

framed by the State Government in respect of minor

minerals:

Provided that the State Government shall not

enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any

minor mineral for more than once during any period of

three years.”

12. As stated by the petitioner, the levy of royalty is by

virtue of Rule 29(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules,

1996, which reads as under:-

“29. Rent, Royalty and other payable

amounts etc. –

(1) When quarry lease is granted or

renewed

(2) xxx xxx

xxx

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any

instruments of the lease, in cases of minerals

specified in Schedule-I and Schedule II, the lessee

shall pay royalty/rent in respect of minerals

..17..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

dispatched and/or consumed at the rate specified

from time to time in Schedule III and Schedule IV:

Provided that notwithstanding anything

contained in any instruments of the lease in cases

of minerals specified in Schedule V; the lessee

shall pay royalty and additional

payable amount/rent under these rules at the rates

specified in Schedule VI and Schedule VII from

time to time in respect of any minerals dispatched

and /or consumed .”

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioner is an existing lease holder from 14.07.2003 to

13.07.2013 and thereafter his application was considered and from

04.07.2013 to 13.07.2023, the appropriate renewal has been granted

in his favour. Since the case of the petitioner is a case of renewal.

Under these circumstances, the exemption of the dead rent as

claimed in the petition cannot be granted to him.

14. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on the

judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P. No.

3433 of 2022 (M/s Manglore Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of A.P

and others) submits that mere inability to extract minerals because

of lack of statutory clearances does not discharge the lessee from

the obligation to pay dead rent. It was held in said judgement that

there was no legal impediment stopping the petitioner from

excavating the minor minerals for which it had been granted a

lease. The petitioner misunderstood the scope of the notification

requiring environment clearances and had voluntarily suspended

mining activity in the lease area. In such circumstances, there was

no hindrance for the petitioner exercising both the rights of entering

..18..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

into the land as well as excavating the minor minerals. Even

otherwise, it would be an implied condition of the lease that the

responsibility of obtaining necessary clearances for carrying on

mining activity would be on the lessee. In such a situation, it would

not be permissible for a lessee to avoid payment of dead rent on the

ground of lack of clearances for carrying on mining activity.

15. The provisions relating to royalty and dead rent, as

contained in the MMDR Act, 1957 are required to be considered.

The relevant provisions are reproduced below:-

9. Royalties in respect of mining leases.―(1)

The holder of a mining lease granted before the

commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything

contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at

such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any 1

[mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent,

manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee] from the

leased area after such commencement, at the rate for the

time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of

that mineral.

(2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or

after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in

respect of any 1 [mineral removed or consumed by him or

by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee]

from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified

in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral.

2 [(2A) The holder of a mining lease, whether

granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and

Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act,

1972 (56 of 1972) shall not be liable to pay any royalty in

respect of any coal consumed by a workman engaged in a

..19..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

colliery provided that such consumption by the workman

does not exceed one-third of a tonne per month.]

(3) The Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second

Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which

royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect

from such date as may be specified in the notification: 3

[Provided that the Central Government shall not enhance

the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once

during any period of [three years].]

[9A. Dead rent to be paid by the lessee.―(1)

The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or

after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals

(Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, shall

notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of

lease or in any other law for the lime being in force, pay to

the State Government, every year, dead rent at such rate, as

may be specified, for the time being, in the Third Schedule,

for all the areas included in the instrument of lease:

Provided that where the holder of such mining

lease becomes liable, under section 9, to pay royalty for any

mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent,

manager, employee, contractor or sub lessee from the

leased area, he shall be liable to pay either such royalty, or

the dead rent in respect of that area, whichever is greater.

(2) The Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Third

Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which the

dead rent shall be payable in respect of any area covered by

a mining lease and such enhancement or reduction shall

take effect from such date as may be specified in the

notification:

..20..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

Provided that the Central Government shall

not enhance the rate of the dead rent in respect of any such

area more than once during any period of [three years].]

THIRD SCHEDULE

(See section 9A)

Rates of Dead Rent

1. Rates of dead rent applicable to the leases granted for low value

minerals are as under:

RATES OF DEAD RENT IN RUPEES PER HECTARE PER

ANNUM

From 2

nd

Year of

Lease

3

rd

and 4

th

Year of

Lease

5

th

Year onwards

400 1000 2000

2. Two times the rate specified at paragraph 1 above in

case of lease granted for medium value minerals.

3. Three times the rate specified at paragraph 1 above in

case of lease granted for high value minerals. 4. Four times the

rate specified at paragraph 1 above in case of lease granted for

precious metals and stones.

Note:

1. For the purpose of this notification:― (a) “precious

metals and stones” means gold, silver, diamond, ruby, sapphire

and emerald;

(b) “high value minerals” means semi-precious stones

(agate, gem garnet), corundum, copper, lead, zinc, and asbestos

(chrysotile variety);

(c) “medium value minerals” means chromite,

manganese ore, kyanite, sillimanite, vermiculite, magnesite,

wollastonite, perlite, diaspore, apatite, rock phosphate, fluorite

(fluorspar), barytes, and iron ore; (d) “low value minerals”

means the minerals other than precious metals and stones, high

value minerals and medium value minerals.]

..21..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

16. Madhya Pradesh Government has also made a rule

regarding the royalty and dead rent which is given below-Madhya

Pradesh Mines and Mineral rules 1996.

29. Rent and Royalty. - (1) When a

quarry lease is granted or renewed-

a. dead rent shall be charged at the

rates specified in Schedule IV;

b. royalty except for limestone shall be

charged at the rates specified in Schedule III.

c. rate of royalty on limestone shall be

the same as fixed by the Government of India

from time to time for limestone in Schedule II of

the Act;

d. surface rent shall be charged at the

rates specified by the Collector of the district

from time to time for the area occupied or used

by the lessee.

(2) On and from the date of

commencement of these rules , the provisions of

sub rule (1) shall also apply to the leases

granted or renewed prior to the date of such

commencement and subsisting on such date;

(3) If the lease permits the working of

more than one mineral in the same area

separate dead rent in respect of each mineral

may be charged :

Provided that the lessee shall be liable to

pay the dead rent or royalty in respect of each

mineral, whichever is higher in amount;

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained

in any instrument of the lease, the lessee shall

..22..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

pay rent/royalty in respect of any mineral

removed and/or consumed at the rate specified

from time to time in Schedule III and IV;

(5) The State Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette amend the

Schedules III and IV so as to enhance or reduce

the rate at which rents/royalties shall be

payable in respect of any mineral with effect

from the date of publication of the notification

in the Official Gazette :

Provided that the rate of royalty/dead

rent in respect of any mineral shall not be

revised more than once during any period of

three years;

(6) No 1[granite and marble] block

either processed or in the raw form or any

other mineral shall be dispatched from any of

leased areas without a valid transit pass issued

by Mining Officer. The transit pass shall be

issued on an application in Form VIII after

depositing royalty for the quantity intended to

be transported out of the minerals extracted.

Contravention of this rule may result in

forfeiture of the security deposit by the

Collector without prejudice to any other action

that might lie against the lessee;

(7) The Transit Pass shall be in Fonn

IX.”

QUARRY LEASE - GENERAL

CONDITIONS

“30. Conditions of quarry lease.- (1) Every

quarry lease shall be subject to the following

Conditions :-

..23..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

(a) The lessee shall pay, for every year '[* *

*], yearly dead rent at the rates specified in the

Schedule IV in the advance for the whole "year, on

or before the 20th day of the first month of the year;

(b) The lessee shall pay the dead rent or

royalty in respect of each mineral whichever is

higher in amount but not both. The lessee shall pay

royalty in respect of quantities of mineral intended

to be consumed or transported from the leased

area, no sooner the amount of dead rent already

paid equals the royalty on mineral consumed or

transported by him. The dead rent or royalty shall

be deposited in the 3[Revenue receipt head

prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 10.]

c. The lessee shall also pay for the surface

area occupied or used by him for the purposes of

mining operations, surface rent in advance for the

whole year on or before the 20th day of the first

month every year;

d. Notwithstanding any other action that may

be taken for default in the payment of dues as

specified in clause (a), (b), (c) within time under

these rules or under any other condition of the

lease, the lessee shall pay interest at the rate of

24% per annum for all defaulted payments of dead

rent, royalty and surface rent.

(2) If any mineral not specified in the lease is

discovered in the leased area, the lessee shall

report discovery without delay to the Collector and

shall not win or dispose of such mineral without

obtaining a lease therefor. If he fails to apply for

such a lease within three months of the discovery of

the mineral, the Competent Authority may sanction

..24..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

lease of such mineral, to any other person, who

applied for it.

(3) The lessee shall not pay wages less than

the minimum wages as prescribed by the State or

the Central Government from time to time under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (No. 11 of 1948).

(4) The lessee shall take all measures for

planting trees in quarried area or any other area

selected by the Collector not less than twice the

number of trees destroyed by reasons of mining or

quarrying operation in addition to restoring and

levelling the land.

(5) The lessee shall commence mining

operation within one year from the date of

execution of the lease deed and shall thereafter

conduct such operations in a proper, skillfi.il and

workman-like manner.

(6) Subject to the other conditions of these

rules, where mining operations have not

commenced within a period of one year from the

date of execution of the lease or discontinued for a

cumulative period of six months during any

calendar year after commencement of such

operation, the Sanctioning Authority may, by an

order, declare the quarry lease as lapsed and

communicate the declaration to the lessee.

(7) Where the lessee is unable to commence

mining operation for a period exceeding one year

or unable to continue mining after commencement

for the reasons beyond his control, he may submit

an application to Sanctioning Authority explaining

the reasons at least ninety days before the expiry of

such period.

..25..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

(8) There shall be paid, in respect of every

application under sub-rule (7), a fee of Rs. 200/-

(Rupees Two Hundred). The amount of fee shall be

deposited in the Government treasury under the

receipt head prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 10.

(9) The Sanctioning Authority of the lease

may, on receipt of an application made under sub-

rule (7) and on being satisfied about the adequacy

and genuineness of the reason for the non-

commencement of mining operations or

discontinuance thereof, pass an order before the

date on which the lease would have otherwise

lapsed; extending or refusing to extend the period

of the lease : Provided that where the Sanctioning

Authority on receipt of application under sub-rule

(7) does not pass any order before the expiry of the

date on which the lease would have otherwise

lapsed, the lease shall be deemed to have been

extended until the order is passed by the concerned

authority or for a period of one year whichever is

earlier.

(10) Where non-commencement of the

mining operation within a period of one year from

the date of execution of the lease deed is on

account of delay in-

i. acquisition of surface rights, or

ii. getting the possession of the leased area,

or

iii. supply or installation of machinery, or

iv. getting financial assistance from banks or

any financial institution.

and if the lessee is able to furnish

documentary evidence supported by a duly sworn-

..26..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

in-affidavit that there are sufficient reasons and/or

reasons beyond their control for non-

commencement of mining operations, the

Sanctioning Authority may revoke the

declaration/order through which the lease has

lapsed.”

17. The question as to whether the rule-making power of the

State Governments under Section 15(1) includes the power to levy

dead rent and royalty has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in D.K. Trivedi and Sons and Others v. State of Gujarat and

Others, 1986 (Supp) SCC 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals

(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is constitutional and

valid, and that the rule-making power conferred thereunder upon

the State Governments does not amount to excessive delegation of

legislative power to the executive. It was further held that the

power to make rules under Section 15(1) includes the power to levy

dead rent and royalty. The rule-making power under Section 15(1)

also includes the power to amend the rules so framed, including

enhancement of the rates of royalty and dead rent. In view of the

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue is no longer

res integra, and it is well settled that the State Governments have

the power to amend the rules relating to royalty and dead rent.

Therefore, the rules made by the State Government are applicable

to the present case.

18. In the case of Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL,

reported as (2024) 10 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered the issue of whether royalty constitutes a tax. However,

in the aforesaid judgment, the issue of liability to pay dead rent

..27..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

under Section 9A of the MMDR Act in cases where the lease was

non-operational was never examined. Therefore, the said judgment

is not helpful for the consideration of the issue raised before this

Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in

paragraphs 130 to 137 as under:-

(c) Royalty is not a tax

130. On first principles, royalty is a

consideration paid by a mining lessee to the

lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights and to

compensate for the loss of value of minerals

suffered by the owner of the minerals. The

marginal note to Section 9 states that

royalties are “in respect of mining leases.”

The liability to pay royalty arises out of the

contractual conditions of the mining lease.

[See Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rules

27 and 45.] A failure of the lessee to pay

royalty is considered to be a breach of the

terms of the contract, allowing the lessor to

determine the lease and initiate proceedings

for recovery against the lessee.

131. Section 9 of the MMDR Act

statutorily regulates the right of a lessor to

receive consideration in the form of royalty

from the lessee for removing or carrying

away minerals from the leased area. Prior to

the enactment of the MMDR Act, such a

condition was treated as part of a mining

lease. The object of empowering the Central

Government to specify rates of royalty for

major minerals was to ensure a certain level

of uniformity in mineral prices in view of the

domestic and international market.

132. The fact that the rates of royalty are

prescribed under Section 9 of the MMDR Act

..28..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

does not make it a “compulsory exaction by

public authority for public purposes”

because:

(i) the compulsion stems from the

contractual conditions of the mining lease

agreed between the lessor and lessee;

(ii) the demand is not made by a public

authority, but the lessor (which can either be

the State Government or a private party);

and

(iii) the payment is not for public purposes,

but a consideration paid to the lessor for

parting with their exclusive privileges in the

minerals.

Moreover, the fact that Section 25 allows

recovery of royalty due to the Government

under the MMDR Act or “under the terms of

the contract” as arrears of land does not

make royalty “an impost enforceable by

law”. Section 25 is a standard recovery

provision allowing the Government to

recover any dues payable to it, flowing from

statute or the terms of a contract.

Pertinently, contractual payments due to the

Government cannot be deemed to be a tax

merely because the statute provides for their

recovery as arrears.

133. There are major conceptual differences

between royalty and a tax:

(i) the proprietor charges royalty as a

consideration for parting with the right to

win minerals, while a tax is an imposition of

a sovereign;

(ii) royalty is paid in consideration of doing

a particular action, that is, extracting

minerals from the soil, while tax is generally

..29..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

levied with respect to a taxable event

determined by law; [Goodyear (India)

Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71,

para 27] and

(iii) royalty generally flows from the lease

deed as compared to tax which is imposed by

authority of law.

134. Under the MMDR Act, the Central

Government fixes the rates of royalty, but it

is still paid to the proprietor by virtue of a

mining lease. In case the minerals vest in the

government, the mining lease is signed

between the State Government (as lessor)

and the lessee in pursuance of Article 299 of

the Constitution. Through the mining lease,

the Government parts with its exclusive

privilege over mineral rights. A

consideration paid under a contract to the

State Government for acquiring exclusive

privileges cannot be termed as an impost.

Since royalty is a consideration paid by the

lessee to the lessor under a mining lease, it

cannot be termed as an impost.

135. This Court has held that royalty is not a

tax, in several decisions. In State of

H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [State

of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.,

(2005) 6 SCC 499] , a three-Judge Bench of

this Court held royalty not to be a tax. The

subsequent decision in Indsil Hydro Power

& Manganese Ltd. v. State of Kerala [Indsil

Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd. v. State of

Kerala, (2021) 10 SCC 165, para 56]

brought out the distinction between tax and

royalty in the following terms : (Indsil Hydro

Power case [Indsil Hydro Power &

..30..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

Manganese Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2021) 10

SCC 165, para 56] , SCC p. 209, para 56)

“56. Thus, the expression “royalty” has

consistently been construed to be

compensation paid for rights and privileges

enjoyed by the grantee and normally has its

genesis in the agreement entered into

between the grantor and the grantee. As

against tax which is imposed under a

statutory power without reference to any

special benefit to be conferred on the payer

of the tax, the royalty would be in terms of

the agreement between the parties and

normally has direct relationship with the

benefit or privilege conferred upon

the grantee.”

(emphasis in original)

136. The principles applicable to royalty

apply to dead rent because:

(i) dead rent is imposed in the exercise of the

proprietary right (and not a sovereign right)

by the lessor to ensure that the lessee works

the mine, and does not keep it idle, and in a

situation where the lessee keeps the mine

idle, it ensures a constant flow of income to

the proprietor;

(ii) the liability to pay dead rent flows from

the terms of the mining lease; [See Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, Rules 27 and 45.]

(iii) dead rent is an alternate to royalty; if

the rates of royalty are higher than dead

rent, the lessee is required to pay the former

and not the latter; and

(iv) the Central Government prescribes the

dead rent not in the exercise of its sovereign

..31..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

right, but as a regulatory measure to ensure

uniformity of rates.

137. In view of the above discussion, we hold

that both royalty and dead rent do not fulfil

the characteristics of tax or impost.

Accordingly, we conclude that the

observation in India Cement [India Cement

Ltd. v. State of T.N., (1990) 1 SCC 12] to the

effect that royalty is a tax is incorrect.

19. Before embarking upon a consideration of this

question, it will be useful to know the meaning of the expressions

“dead rent” and “royalty” and their connotation. Wharton’s Law

Lexicon, 14th Edn., at p. 300, defines “dead rent” as:

“Dead Rent.—A rent payable on a mining

lease in addition to a royalty, so called because it

is payable whether the mine is being worked or

not.”

The definition of “dead rent” given in

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., at p. 359, is as

follows:

“Dead Rent.—In English law, a rent

payable on a mining lease in addition to a royalty,

so called because it is payable although the mine

may not be worked.”

Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, 2nd

Edn., at p. 555, defines “dead rent” as:

“Dead Rent, a term sometimes used in

mining leases in contradistinction to a royalty, to

denote a fixed rent to be paid whether the mine is

productive or not. See Rent.”

..32..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

The same dictionary states under the

heading “Rent”, at p. 1544:

“When a mine, quarry, brick-works, or

similar property is leased, the lessor usually

reserves not only a fixed yearly rent but also a

royalty or galeage rent, consisting of royalties

(q.v.) varying with the quantity of minerals,

bricks, etc., produced during each year. In this

case the fixed rent is called a dead rent.”

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that there is a clear distinction between royalty

and dead rent. Royalty is a kind of rent which the lessor of a mine

charges from the lessee, the amount of which varies with the

quantity of minerals extracted during each year. Dead rent is also a

kind of mineral rent, but it differs from royalty in that royalty is a

variable charge based on the value or quantity of the minerals

produced, whereas dead rent is a minimum annual payment.

Ordinarily, dead rent is not enforced if the amount payable as

annual royalty exceeds the dead rent fixed for that year. In this

sense, royalty is the genus and dead rent is the species.

21. Argument in advance is that the dead rent is nothing

but it is a guarantee of minimum Royalty, meaning there by when

the royalty of excavation of mineral is lesser to the dead rent as

per the schedule I of the Act then, minimum royalty as a dead rent

must be paid as per the rule. It is also argued that the Section 9-A is

nothing it is enabling provision of the Section 9 of the MMDR Act.

Meaning thereby when the royalty on excavation of mineral on

lease land is paid then the provision of dead rent Section 9-A will

come to operation and minimum dead rent as a royalty have to be

..33..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

paid by lessee. We disagree that argument, Section 9-A of the

MMDR Act is individual section from the section 9 of the MMDR

Act, it cannot be read only as a enabling provision of the section 9

of the MMDR Act. Section 9-A of the MMDR Act has a two fold

first is that the minimum guaranty of royalties and second the

payment of dead rent if lessee could not operate the excavation and

lessee fails to surrender the lease if not operated within one year.

In this respect the M.P Mines and Mineral Rules 1996 are

applicable, which say that after one year of execution of lease,

dead rent be imposed as per the schedule. That rule clearly says that

whatever may be the reason excavation could not start within one

year dead rent imposed as per schedule until the lease lapse as per

the rule 30(10) of the M.P. Mines and Mineral Rules.

22. It is submitted by petitioner that the lease is defined in

Section 105 of the T.P Act. According to that a lease of

immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property,

made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in

consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of

crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered

periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the

transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The petitioner

further submits that it must be understood to mean a grant of two

rights, i.e., a right to enter the leased/licensed area and a right to

extract minerals from the leased/licensed area. He further submits

that the transaction is a transaction in the nature of "Profit a

prendre". He submits that once the petitioner's right to extract

minerals had been suspended, on account of lack of environment

clearance, then there would be no liability on the petitioner to pay

..34..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

dead rent. The aforesaid submission is not acceptable, as under

Section 9-A of the MMDR Act and the Madhya Pradesh Mines and

Minerals Rules, 1996, provisions exist for the imposition of dead

rent where the lessee fails to operate the lease within one year of

execution. In such cases, dead rent is recoverable in accordance

with Schedule III of Section 9-A of the MMDR Act.

23. The conditions for grating quarry lease are provided

under Section 30 of the M.P Mines and Minerals Rules 1996.

Where the lessee is unable to commence mining operation for a

period exceeding one year or is unable to continue mining after

commencement for the reasons beyond his control, he may submit

an application to Sanctioning Authority explaining the reasons at

least ninety days before the expiry of such period. The

Sanctioning Authority of the lease may, on receipt of an application

made under sub-rule (7) and on being satisfied about the adequacy

and genuineness of the reason for the non-commencement of

mining operations or discontinuance thereof, pass an order before

the date on which the lease would have otherwise lapsed; either

extending or refusing to extend the period of the lease.

Provided that where the Sanctioning Authority on receipt of

application under sub-rule (7) does not pass any order before the

expiry of the date on which the lease would have otherwise lapsed,

the lease shall be deemed to have been extended until the order is

passed by the concerned authority or for a period of one year

whichever is earlier. Duty cast upon the lessee, where non-

commencement of the mining operation within a period of one year

..35..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

from the date of execution of the lease deed, is on account of delay

in-

i. acquisition of surface rights, or

ii. getting the possession of the leased area, or

iii. supply or installation of machinery, or

iv. getting financial assistance from banks or any

financial institution, and if the lessee is able to furnish

documentary evidence supported by a duly sworn-in-

affidavit that there are sufficient reasons and/or

reasons beyond their control for such non-

commencement of mining operations, the Sanctioning

Authority may revoke the declaration/order through

which the lease has lapsed.

24. The petitioner has failed to submit an application for

declaration of lapse of the lease within one year on account of non-

operation of the lease for any of the reasons provided under sub-

rule (7) of Rule 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Mines and Minerals

Rules, 1996. Consequently, the lease continued for its stipulated

period. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay dead rent after the

expiry of one year from the date of execution of the lease deed until

an application for declaration of lapse of the lease is filed.

25. Dead rent is a fixed rent based on the area leased,

payable regardless of mineral extraction activity. It is a minimum

guaranteed amount that the lessee must pay during the lease period,

independent of whether mining operations occur. It is distinct from

royalty, which varies with the quantity of minerals extracted. Dead

rent is primarily charged on the leased area and is considered a

..36..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

fixed consideration for the lease. Under Section 9A of the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the lessee

is liable to pay either the dead rent or royalty, whichever is higher,

with the dead rent serving as the minimum amount payable. Rules

such as Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996 specify that annual dead rent

must be paid in advance, based on the lease terms, and is applicable

during the currency of the lease. The two are separate concepts;

first, in cases where the royalty payable is less than the dead rent,

the dead rent becomes payable under the relevant legal provisions.

With dead rent serving as a minimum guarantee for the lessor.

Second, lessees are required to pay dead rent whether or not they

conduct mining operations, and failure to do so can lead to

penalties, including lease termination. The dead rent is not

dependent on production levels but is a fixed obligation based on

the leased area at the outset of the lease. That dead rent is a fixed

minimum rent, distinct from royalties, and must be paid during the

lease term.

26. The coordinate Division Bench of this court, in the

case of M/S Birla Corporation Ltd. & Ors v/s The State of M.P.

and Ors. reported as 2023 MPLJ 476, has opined that from the

perusal of the provisions of the MMDR Act, it is seen that the

holder of the mining lease is required to pay royalty on the mineral

extracted or removed by him from the leased area whereas, the

dead rent in terms of Section 9A of the Act of MMDR Act is to be

ascertained at the time of execution of the leased documents,

irrespective of the fact whether the extraction is being carried out

by the lease holder or not.

..37..

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483

27. We are of the considered opinion that Section 9-A of

the MMDR Act is an independent provision and not merely an

enabling provision of Section 9 of the said Act. Accordingly, the

petitioner is liable to pay dead rent in cases where the lease remains

non-operational during the relevant period.

28. A conjoint reading of Section 9-A of the MMDR Act

and sub-rules (5) to (10) of Rule 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Mines

and Minerals Rules, 1996 makes it abundantly clear that the lessee

is liable to pay dead rent until the lease lapses, irrespective of

whether the lease is operational or not.

29. Accordingly, the petitions filed by the petitioners

being devoid of merits and substance are hereby dismissed.

30. Interim relief, if any, against the recovery of dead rent,

is also hereby vacated.

31. Photocopy of this order be placed in all connected

cases.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)

JUDGE JUDGE

MSP