Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35636
1 WP-10685-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10685 of 2026
KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi and Ms. Jyoti Tiwari Advocate for the
petitioner.
Smt. Janhavi Pandit - Additional Advocate General for
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
"(I) Hon'ble Court may kindly please to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.5 and also may kindly be quash the RRC dated 30-
08-2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by Collector Shahdol (M.P.).
(II) Any other reliefs deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is a submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH MASSEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 5:23:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35636 2 WP-10685-2026 petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.6.2025 passed by the Assistant Mining Officer District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh whereby demand notice has been issued to the petitioner for deposit of dead rent.
3. It is a submission of learned counsel for petitioner that a quarry lease approved in favour of petitioner for Khasra No.1011/1 ad-measuring 1.092 hectare situated at village Godaru, Tehsil Gohparu District Shahdol for a period of 10 years for excavation of minor mineral "gitti" vide order dated 16.9.2017. After approval of Geology and Mining department, Collector passed the order dated 21.12.2017 and allotted the lease for a period of 10 years. Thereafter petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into an agreement dated 21.5.2018 over Khasra No.1009 admeasuring 4.950 hectare situated at village Godaru Tehsil Gohparu for a period of 10 years from 21.5.2018 to 20.5.2028.
4. It appears that the petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.3 for extension of time for establishment of crusher and for submitting the CTO from the concerning department. It further appears that even after lapse of one year, crusher could not be established and dead rent for the period 2019 to 2020 was not deposited. Therefore, show cause notice was issued on 20.07.2020. Petitioner submitted his reply.
5. On 14.9.2023 petitioner made an application for cancellation of query lease on the ground of Covid-19 pandemic situation and its aftermath. In pursuance thereof vide order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-P/9) lease deed was cancelled. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit the dead rent.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he paid Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH MASSEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 5:23:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35636 3 WP-10685-2026 lease rent around Rs.8 lacs for the period when the lease was in vogue and this payment was made as part of dead rent. Therefore, that amount deserves to be deducted from over all liability. It is further submitted that the petitioner moved an application on 14.09.2023 for cancellation of lease deed and said lease agreement was cancelled on 21.02.2025. For that period the petitioner was not obliged to deposit the dead rent.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not required to pay dead rent in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashish Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 1 MPLJ 354 .
8. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer. Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General refers judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petition in which petition W.P. No.3601/2021 (M.P. Bricks Company Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) was the lead case wherein the Division Bench passed a detailed order on dated 28.01.2026 and clarified the position that the dead rent in said fact situation is to be paid, even when the lease remains non-operational.
9. Heard.
10. After going through the order dated 28.01.2026 passed in M.P. Bricks Company (supra), it appears that the said aspect is dealt with in categorical terms. Para 27 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"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."
11. Therefore, in view of the said legal position, it is abundantly Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH MASSEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 5:23:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35636 4 WP-10685-2026 clear that so far as payment of dead rent is concerned, petitioner has to pay it. Hence, to that extent petition devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
12. However, petitioner raised two grounds in specific terms. One is that he paid lease rent around Rs.8 lakhs for the period when the lease was in vogue and this payment was made as part of dead rent. Another aspect is that petitioner moved an application on 14.9.2023 for cancellation of lease deed but respondents cancelled the lease deed on 21.2.2025 after more than 17 months. Therefore, both these aspects are required to be considered by respondents whether period when petitioner made application for cancellation of lease agreement till the date of cancellation of said lease agreement would be deducted or not is required to be decided by the respondents. Similarly whether Rs.8 lakhs paid by the petitioner earlier would be set off from the total liability or not is also required to be adjudicated. These two aspects respondents have to consider. Petitioner may make representation in this regard and same shall be decided as per law. So far as principle of payment of dead rent is concerned, is no longer res- integra, therefore, petitioner shall have to pay the said amount after due consideration by the respondents as referred above.
13. Resultantly, impugned order stands affirmed, but modification as referred above.
(ANAND PATHAK) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 5/7/2026
5:23:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35636
5 WP-10685-2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 5/7/2026
5:23:23 PM