( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the respondents have no power or authority to demand and collect dead rent and also cess with regard to patta lands, either at the time of granting mining lease or thereafter and for and consequential declaration that the demand of dead rent is arbitrary and unconstitutional and also for a consequential declaration that the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 01-4-1997, whereby an amount of rs. 2,29,590/- was demanded as due towards dead rent and also towards advance dead rent, as illegal and arbitrary.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2. 48 hectors in Chittagudem Muttagudem village, Khammam District. He applied for lease to extract granite under the A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules ). The lease was granted for 15 years and a work order was also executed in form g . As per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, an amount of rs. 25,000/- by way of dead rent together with 1/4th cess thereon and a seigniorage fee as prescribed has to be paid. The contention as regards the payment of seigniorage fee is not in controversy. The 4th respondent through proceedings dated 1-4-1997, demanded the petitioner to pay the dead rent from the year of lease till the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings. Hence, the writ petition.

( 3 ) TWO important questions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. (1) no dead rent can be collected in the case of mining lease in favour of a person who owns land if there is no mining operation and (2) the present impugned demand through proceedings dated 1-4-1997, has been raised belatedly. Since the rules empowered the Government to pass orders lapsing the mining lease and also since that procedure has not been followed by the Government, it is not open for the Government to demand any payments under the dead rent through the impugned proceedings.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner elaborates his contentions stating that since the petitioner is the owner of the land, he has all surface rights in that capacity. Mineral being the property of the government and governed by statute i. e. , mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the Act ) read with Rules, the petitioner had applied for lease to extract the mineral from his patta land. Upon his application, the lease was granted in his favour after fulfilling the formalities like entering into the lease agreement, payment of initially fixed dead rent etc. When once such licence was granted, it is for the petitioner either to operate or not to operate the mining activity. He further contends that since the date of entering into the lease agreement, till the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings, dated 1-4-1997, or even thereafter, no mining activity had been taken up and hence the petitioner is not under an obligation to pay the dead rent every year. In other words, his contention is that since for obtaining the lease, the prescribed conditions have to be complied, he made the payment of dead rent of rs. 25,000/- and further inasmuch as no mining operations were taken up for all these years till today, the Government is not entitled to collect any dead rent from the petitioner and also inasmuch as the petitioner is the owner of the land and all the surface rights are vested with him only.

( 5 ) IN order to substantiate his contention, he relied on a decision of the Madras High court in Kumaresan v. State of Tamil Nadu.

( 6 ) THOUGH some other decisions of the madras High Court were relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, those decisions are not relevant inasmuch as they were already referred to in Kumaresan s case.

( 7 ) REGARDING the second issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the lease was granted in his favour in the year 1993, no mining operation was taken up.