1. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is common and, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order, however, the facts of SBCWP No. 12721/2025 are being taken illustratively. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-

                          "i. By appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 25.02.2025 (Annex. 30) and 07.03.2025 (Annex. 31), and any consequential action taken in furtherance of these orders may kindly be quashed and set aside.

                          ii. By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to accept the surrender of the petitioner's Mining Lease No. 172/89 with effect from 01.07.2022 and consequently return the Fixed Deposit Receipts submitted by the petitioner to the amount of ₹2,83,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Rupees Only).

                          iii. The notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26) be quashed and set aside. iv. The respondents be directed to refund the amount of security deposit of Rs. 32495/- and performance guarantee of Rs. 128700/-, if forfeited in the meanwhile."

2. Briefly, stated facts are that the petitioner is the holder of a mining lease for minor mineral Rhyolite, situated near village Kaaga, Jodhpur. The said mining lease was originally granted in favour of the petitioner's father vide Mining Lease No. 172/89 on 21.11.1990. Upon the demise of his father, the lease was duly transferred in favour of the petitioner by order dated 19.09.2012, followed by execution of a rider agreement. Subsequently, by operation of law, the lease period stood extended up to 16.03.2025 through a supplementary agreement dated 01.08.2019. The petitioner was also operating a stone crushing unit on an industrial plot allotted by the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur.

3. For renewal of Environmental Clearance ('EC') of the stone crushing unit, the petitioner was required to obtain demarcation of the mining lease area. Accordingly, he applied for demarcation and, upon direction of the respondent Department, deposited the requisite demarcation fee of Rs.15,000/- in February 2022. Despite issuance of repeated directions by the Mining Engineer to the concerned official for conducting demarcation, and despite several written reminders by the petitioner highlighting the financial losses suffered due to non-operation of the mine and stone crushing unit, no demarcation was carried out. The prolonged inaction of the respondent authorities rendered the mining operations and the stone crushing unit inoperative, causing recurring economic loss to the petitioner.

4. In view of continued inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner, by letters dated 18.06.2022 and 27.06.2022, surrendered his mining lease and clearly intimated that he would not have any liability with effect from 01.07.2022. He also sought refund of the security deposit, performance guarantee and other amounts deposited by way of FDRs, including the demarcation fee. The petitioner continued to submit nil mining returns for the relevant assessment years, evidencing that no mining activity was undertaken after early 2022. However, despite repeated communications and compliance with requirements subsequently intimated by the Department, including submission of affidavit, fees and approved Mine Closure Plan, the respondents failed to pass any formal order accepting the surrender of the lease.

5. Instead of finalising the surrender and refunding the deposits, the respondent Department, in a mechanical manner, continued to issue communications insisting upon demarcation and alleging non-compliance by the petitioner. Ultimately, despite being repeatedly informed that the mining lease had already been surrendered, the respondents issued a demand notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26) demanding dead rent for the period subsequent to the surrender. This was followed, after a prolonged silence of nearly two years, by an order dated 25.02.2025 cancelling the mining lease and forfeiting the petitioner's security deposit, and a consequential order dated 07.03.2025 (Annex.31)forfeiting the performance guarantee and other deposits, without granting any effective opportunity of hearing and without considering the petitioner's replies.

6. Aggrieved by the arbitrary demand of dead rent, the failure of the respondents to act upon the surrender of the mining lease, and the subsequent orders cancelling the lease and forfeiting the security deposit and performance guarantee, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing the instant writ petition.

7. Counsel further submits that the impugned order is manifestly non-speaking, as it does not disclose any reason for cancellation of the petitioner's mining lease. Though it cryptically refers to non-deposit of some "remaining amount", the order does not quantify the alleged liability, does not specify the nature or head of such liability, and does not indicate the period for which the alleged dues pertain. Furthermore, she submits that while the order acknowledges that the petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, it fails to record any reason whatsoever for rejecting the said reply, merely stating that it was found "unsatisfactory", which is impermissible in law.

8. She submits that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the petitioner had already surrendered his mining lease much prior to the issuance of the cancellation order. She further submits that once the lease stood surrendered, the respondents lacked jurisdiction to cancel the same.

9. She submits that the respondents have exercised their discretion illegally by completely ignoring a relevant and material fact, namely, the surrender of the mining lease by the petitioner. She further submits that non-consideration of the petitioner's detailed replies while passing the impugned order amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 specifically provides for surrender of a mining lease upon payment of a fixed fee of Rs.5,000/-. She further submits that the requirement of a Mine Closure Plan arises only when mining operations are being carried out. In the present case, no mining activity was undertaken by the petitioner, as is evident from the nil returns submitted. She further submits that nevertheless, the petitioner deposited the prescribed fee and also submitted a Mine Closure Plan, thereby fully complying with the statutory requirements for surrender, but the respondents proceeded against a lease which had already been surrendered.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the prolonged inaction of the respondents in conducting demarcation, the petitioner suffered severe financial losses as his environmental clearance could not be renewed and the stone crushing unit remained non-operational. She further submits that the petitioner was thus constrained to surrender the mining lease. She further submits that the subsequent cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the security deposit and performance guarantee is ex- facie illegal and unjust.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the respondents deliberately refrained from passing an order on surrender of the mining lease despite repeated requests, while simultaneously issuing a baseless demand notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26) and the impugned orders dated 25.02.2025 (Annex.30) and 07.03.2025 (Annex.31), solely with the intent to deprive the petitioner of refund of the security deposit and other amounts.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite full compliance with all formalities for surrender, the respondents grossly violated the provisions of law by indefinitely delaying the surrender proceedings and thereafter passing the impugned order to forfeit the petitioner's performance guarantee and security deposit, which action is arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable in law.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14411/2025, submits that the impugned notice dated 18.07.2025 (Annex.33), purportedly issued under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is wholly illegal and arbitrary, as it alleges recovery of arrears from 01.04.2023 onwards, whereas the disputed demand relates to the period 2022-2023, thereby disclosing a clear contradiction and mismatch regarding the period of alleged arrears and complete non- application of mind. She further submits that the respondents have initiated coercive recovery proceedings for an amount of Rs.2,57,400/-, accompanied by a threat of attachment of property (Annex.33), without issuing any prior notice of demand as mandatorily required under Rule 87 of the Rules of 2017, rendering the impugned action without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed and set aside.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that mere submission of an application seeking surrender of the mining lease does not amount to valid surrender in law. He further submits that in accordance with Rule 25(2) of the 2017 Rules, a mining lease can be treated as surrendered only upon fulfillment of the prescribed statutory requirements, including submission of necessary documents, payment of Rs.5,000/- non-refundable fee, approval of the Final Mine Closure Plan and submission of compliance report thereof.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was duly informed vide letter dated 26.07.2022 (Annex.18) about the deficiencies in his surrender application and was required to complete statutory formalities. Despite this, the petitioner neither submitted the prescribed surrender fee of Rs.5,000 nor furnished the compliance report of the Final Mine Closure Plan, nor obtained its approval from the competent authority, all of which are essential prerequisites for surrender under the Rules of 2017.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the surrender process remained incomplete, the mining lease continued to subsist in law. Accordingly, the petitioner was liable to pay dead rent for the entire year 2022-23, and therefore, the demand notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26) for recovery of dead rent was legally issued. He further submits that the petitioner was given due opportunity by way of a 30-day notice, and reply was duly considered by the Department.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that owing to persistent non-compliance by the petitioner, including non- payment of outstanding dues and failure to complete surrender formalities, the respondents were left with no alternative but to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the mining lease. He further submits that the cancellation was carried out after following due process, obtaining requisite approvals from the competent authorities, and after issuance of show-cause notices.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 25.02.2025 cancelling the mining lease and forfeiting the security deposit was passed after considering the factual status reports and the petitioner's continued default. He further submits that the subsequent letter dated 07.03.2025 (Annex.31) merely intimates the taking over of possession pursuant to lawful cancellation and does not suffer from any infirmity.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner's contention that the lease stood surrendered is wholly misconceived, as the statutory conditions for surrender were never fulfilled. Therefore, the respondents were well within their jurisdiction to cancel the lease and forfeit the security amount in accordance with law.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent, with respect to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14411/2025, submits at the Bar that the period mentioned in the impugned notice dated 18.07.2025 (Annex.33), showing the arrears as due from 01.04.2023, is merely a clerical and typographical error. He submits that the demand pertains to the very same period, namely 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023, for which an earlier demand notice had already been issued vide Annex.26, and therefore, the impugned notice is strictly in accordance with law and causes no prejudice to the petitioner.

22. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at Bar by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

23. This Court finds that the core controversy revolves around the alleged surrender of Mining Lease No. 172/89 by the petitioner and the legality of the consequential demand of dead rent and cancellation of the lease by the respondents. The determination of this issue necessarily requires examination of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, which governs surrender of mining leases. The relevant rule is reproduced here:-

                          "25. Surrender of mineral or area of mining lease.-

                          (1) A lessee holding a mining lease for a group of minerals may apply for surrender of any mineral from a lease along with a non-refundable fee of rupees five thousand to the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned on the ground that deposits of that mineral have since exhausted or depleted to such an extent that it is no longer economical to work the mineral, the competent authority may permit the lessee to surrender that mineral subject to the condition that he shall not cause any hindrance in the working of the mineral so surrendered by him. A mining lease in respect of that mineral may be subsequently granted to any other person:

                          Provided that once the mineral has been surrendered, such mineral shall not be included or granted to the same lessee in future.

                          (2) The lessee may surrender the lease at any time by giving an application to the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned, along with a non-refundable fee of rupees five thousand, no dues of the lease over and above the performance security and compliance report of final mine closure plan, the surrender of lease shall be accepted by the competent authority with immediate effect: Provided that surrender of lease shall be accepted after six months from the date of application, if there remains any dues over and above the performance security against the lessee on the date of submitting surrender application. Provided further that final mine closure plan shall not be required, in case no mining is done in the surrendered area. Provided also that if closure plan is not found to be implemented, financial assurance shall be forfeited and shall be contributed towards District Mineral Foundation Trust.

                          (3) The lessee may surrender a part of the lease area by submitting an application to the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned, along with a non-refundable fee of rupees five thousand, scanned copy of plan and description report showing retained and part of the area to be surrendered, no dues certificate of the lease and compliance report of final mine closure plan of the area being surrendered. Part surrender of the area may be accepted by the competent authority subject to the following conditions:-

                          and (i) As far as possible the retained area shall be rectangular; (ii) The retained area in each block shall not less than the minimum area specified in Schedule I: Provided that where, retained area remains in more than one block, part surrender shall be accepted with prior approval of the Director. Provided further that in case of mineral bajri (river sand), part surrender shall not be accepted.

                          (4) The lessee, in case of part surrender of the lease, shall submit within three months from the date of order, an approved copy of mine plan along with progressive closure plan of retained area: Provided that final mine closure plan shall not be required, in case mining has not been done in the part surrendered area.

                          (5) The dead rent of the retained area, in case of part surrender, shall be calculated as specified in Schedule III."

24. Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 2017 clearly stipulates that a lessee may surrender a mining lease at any time by submitting an application to the competent authority along with: (i) a non- refundable fee of Rs.5,000/-, (ii) no dues of the lease over and above the performance security, and (iii) compliance report of the final mine closure plan, where applicable. The Rule further clarifies that surrender can be accepted with immediate effect only upon fulfillment of these mandatory conditions, and where dues remain, surrender is to be accepted only after six months.

25. In the present case, the petitioner submitted an application seeking surrender of the mining lease on 18.06.2022 (Annex.10). Upon examination of the said application, the respondent, vide communication dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.22), specifically pointed out three deficiencies therein, namely: (i) non-submission of an affidavit along with the petition for study; (ii) non-deposit of the prescribed surrender fee of Rs.5,000/-; and (iii) non-submission of a copy of the approved final mine closure plan. Despite due intimation and opportunity being afforded to rectify the said deficiencies, the petitioner failed to deposit the non-refundable amount of Rs.5,000/- towards surrender fees. Consequently, the statutory requirements for surrender under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017 remained unfulfilled, and mere expression of intent to surrender did not result in a valid surrender in the eyes of law.

26. A significant aspect which weighs against the petitioner is the absence of proof of deposit of the non-refundable surrender fee of Rs.5,000/- as required under Rule 25(2) of 2017. The Annex.21, which has been relied upon by the petitioner, contains an e-challan of Rs.5,000/-. Upon perusal of the e-challan (Annex.21), it clearly reflects in the remarks category that the amount was deposited towards "Final Mine Closure Plan". This entry unequivocally establishes that the said amount was not deposited as the non- refundable surrender fee contemplated under Rule 25(2) rather, it was deposited towards the Final Mine Closure Plan. Therefore, the statutory requirement of depositing the non-refundable fee along with the surrender application remains unfulfilled.

27. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the mining lease stood validly surrendered with effect from 01.07.2022. Since the surrender application was incomplete and did not satisfy the mandatory conditions prescribed under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, the surrender process cannot be said to have been completed in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mining lease continued to subsist, and the petitioner remained liable to discharge statutory obligations attached to the lease, including payment of dead rent.

28. This court finds that once it is held that the surrender was not validly completed, the demand of dead rent for the relevant period cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction. Payment of dead rent is a statutory duty of the lessee so long as the lease subsists, irrespective of whether mining operations were carried out or not. Further, this court finds that the respondents were, therefore, justified in raising the demand for dead rent and in proceeding further in accordance with law upon continued non- compliance by the petitioner.

29. In these circumstances, and in view of the statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondent clarifying that the discrepancy in the period mentioned in the notice was merely a typographical error, this Court finds no merit in the challenge laid to the demand notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26) or the impugned orders dated 25.02.2025 (Annex.30) and 07.03.2025 (Annex.31). The impugned actions cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when the petitioner himself failed to fulfil the mandatory statutory requirements for surrender despite due intimation of the deficiencies. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

30. With regard to the submissions advanced in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14411/2025, arising out of the impugned notice dated 18.07.2025 (Annex.33), stated to be consequential to the earlier notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annex.26), learned counsel for the respondent has stated at the Bar that the alleged mismatch in the period of arrears is the result of a purely clerical and inadvertent typographical error. This Court finds no substance in the petitioner's contention in that regard, as the explanation offered by the respondent satisfactorily clarifies the discrepancy. Such a clerical error neither affects the substance, legality, or enforceability of the demand nor causes any prejudice to the petitioner. The impugned notice having been issued strictly in accordance with law, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

31. In view of the above discussion the writ petitions are dismissed. Stay petition(s) as well as any other pending application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.