As per case facts, the petitioner, a transferee of a mining lease for 6 acres of limestone and dolomite, applied for a deemed extension under the MMDR Act. The application ... was rejected because the lease area was below the minimum 4 hectares required by Rule 22-D of MCR, 1960, which was in force when the lease was granted. The petitioner argued the rule was inapplicable or that other similar leases existed, and challenged the initial grant of a smaller area. The question arose whether the petitioner was entitled to the deemed extension of the mining lease. Finally, the High Court held that the lease, granted in violation of Rule 22-D's minimum area requirement, was void under Section 19 of the MMDR Act. The court rejected arguments of negative equality and inapplicability of the rule, dismissing the petition.