ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the letter No. l985/m2/76 dated 14-9-1990 of the 4th respondent, letter no. 4724/m3/89 dated 3-1-1991 and the letter No. l985/m4/76 dated 2-1-1991 issued by the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively, as illegal and void and direct the 4th respondent to refund Rs. 15,477. 00 to the petitioner or adjust it during the year 1990-91 and subsequent years and pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) IT is submitted that on 22-6-1976, under the provisions of the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 (for brevity the rules), a mining lease for lime shell was executed between the Government of andhra Pradesh and the petitioner for a period of 20 years over an extent of ac. 1647. 71 of Pulicat Lake situated at venadu village, Tada Mandal, Nellore district. The lease was granted to the petitioner as an incentive for setting up an industry by the petitioner for the manufacture of lime shell powder and allied products at Tada within two years from the date of lease, accordingly the petitioner has set up the industry within rime in terms of the lease deed and the dead rent payable is as follows: First Year Nil 2nd year to 5th year Rs. 12. 50 ps. per hectare 6th year to 10th year Rs. 25/-per hectare 11th year to 20th year Rs. 37. 50 ps. per hectare it is further stated that the above said rates were fixed as an incentive for setting up the industry in the industrially backward area. However, the Assistant Director, Mines and geology, Nellore, the 4th respondent, by an order dated 27-11-1989, while rejecting the representation against the demand of dead rent at an enhanced rate of Rs. 150. 00 per hectare with effect from 5-5-1987, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,60,096. 05 ps. being the arrears due and payable upto the period ending 31-3-1989. Challenging the said demand, the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 150. 00 per hectare with effect from 5-5-1987, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,60,096. 05 ps. being the arrears due and payable upto the period ending 31-3-1989. Challenging the said demand, the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 17815 of 1989 while admitting the writ petition this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 23624 of 1989 on 31-1-1990 directed the respondents to issue transport permits on condition of the petitioner depositing one half of the demand and furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining amount and the petitioner has complied the said direction. ( 3 ) IT is further submitted that by letter dated 29-12-1988, the petitioner informed the Government and other respondents that out of the leased area of Ac. 1647. 71, the petitioner was surrendering Ac. 1447. 71 as it was found to be uneconomical and retaining only Ac. 200. 00 acres for mining operations, and a rough sketch duly marking the area that was to be retained was enclosed. Thereafter, the 4th respondent deputed his Surveyor for survey and demarcation of that part of the area surrendered by the petitioner and the petitioner paid Rs. 200. 00 on 5-4-1989 in the sub-Treasury, Gudur, towards survey charges and survey was conducted and a map was also prepared duly certified by the 4th respondent demarcating the area and the petitioner has also accepted the correctness of the same by his undated letter. After lapse of one year i. e. , on 22-5-90, the 4th respondent informed that the sketch submitted along with the letter dated 29-12-1988 was not satisfying Rule 35 or the rules and directed the petitioner to attend his office for finalisation of the area required by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned letter issued by the respondent is not legal. Rule 35 of the Rules contemplates the length of an area held under mining lease shall not exceed four times its breadth. As per the said direction, the petitioner submitted revised sketch on 6-7-1990 in accordance with Rule 35 and on 10-7-1990 the 4th respondent deputed Surveyor of his office and he has surveyed the area and on 10-7-90 the petitioner wrote letter to the 4th respondent surrendering 1447. 71 acres of land and retaining 200 acres. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the third proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rules read with letter No. l (42)/67. 71 acres of land and retaining 200 acres. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the third proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rules read with letter No. l (42)/67. M. II dated 17-4-1968 of the Department of Mines and Metals, government of India, the surrender of the said has taken effect from 29-12-1988. But the fourth respondent by the impugned letter directed the petitioner to pay rs. 1,27,107/- towards arrears for the year 1989-90 failing which the transport permits will not be issued. The particulars. demand are as follows: Dead rent Rs. 90,036. 00 Surface rent Rs. 1,648. 00 Cesses Rs. 33,923. 00 M. R. T. Rs. 1,500. 00 Rs. 1,27,107. 00 the above said demand was for the entire extent of Ac. 1647. 71, but the petitioner submitted a reply dated 4-11-1990 to the 4th respondent with copies to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the letters were received by the respondents. In the above said letters, the petitioner requested the 4th respondent to assess the dead-rent payable for 200 acres only which was in possession of the petitioner and issue fresh demand after taking into consideration the payments already made. With regard to the payment of M. R. T. and other cess are concerned, the petitioner stated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this court, the levy and demand were illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, another letter dated 16-11-1990 was sent to the 4th respondent with copies to the 2nd and 3rd respondents stating that as against the actual amount of Rs. 8,280. 00 payable towards dead-rent, the petitioner has paid in all a sum of Rs. 12,500. 00 and hence, the surface rent of Rs. 1,648. 00 payable may be adjusted from the said excess of Rs. 4,220. 00 and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,272. 00 may be adjusted towards mineral revenues for the year 1990-91 and accordingly requested to issue transport permits. When there was no action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner issued reminders dated 15-12-90, but the petitioner has not received any reply from the respondent. Therefore, questioning the above demand dated 14-9-1990, the present writ petition was filed, as it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions, Rules and judgment of the Apex Court and this court. Therefore, questioning the above demand dated 14-9-1990, the present writ petition was filed, as it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions, Rules and judgment of the Apex Court and this court. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent has no right whatsoever to demand Mineral right Tax as well as cess, as held by the supreme Court of India in India Cements case reported in AIR 1990 SC 85 and the judgment of the A. P. High Court reported in 1990 (2) ALT 398 and 1990 (2) ALT 481, as the demand of Rs. 1,500. 00 towards balance of M. R. T. and Rs. 33,923. 00 towards balance of cess is unsustainable. It is further contended that the petitioner has paid the following amounts towards cess and M. R. T. : MRT Date of Payment Amount Challan No. 12-4-1989 20-9-1989 8-11-1989 16-3-1990 Rs. 2,500/- rs. 2,500/- rs. 2,500/- rs. 5,000/- Not readily available 1046,sbi, Gudur 333, SBI, Gudur 3088, SBI, Nellore Total Rs. 12,500/- CESSES: 12-4-1989 20-9-1989 8-11-1989 16-3-1990 Rs. 925/- rs. 925/- rs. 925/- rs. 1,850/- Not readily available 1077 SBI,gudur 34, SBI, Gudur 3088,sbi, Nellore Total Rs. 4,625/- therefore, according to the calculations made by the petitioner, he is entitled for a refund of Rs. 17,125. 00. He further contended that the 4th respondent erred in calculating the dead rent for the entire extent of ac. 1,647. 71 when the petitioner has surrendered an extent of Ac. 1,447. 71 on 29-12-1988 and had been doing mining operations only in 200 acres. The petitioner further stated that as per clause 1 of Part V of the lease deed, the lessee shall pay for every year except the first year of the lease yearly dead rent as specified in clause 2 of that part in respect of each mineral provided that the lessee shall be liable to pay the dead rent or royalty in respect of each mineral which ever is higher in amount, but not the both, and the petitioner has paid royalty @ Rs. 10. 00 per ton of lime- shell in advance as under: Date of Payment Amount Challan No. 12-4-1989 Rs. 2,500 /- Not readily available 20-9-1989 Rs. 2,500/- 1047, SBI, Gudur 8-11-1989 Rs. 2,500/- 331, SBI, Gudur 16-3-1990 Rs. 2,500/- 3087, SBI, Nellore Total . Rs. 10. 00 per ton of lime- shell in advance as under: Date of Payment Amount Challan No. 12-4-1989 Rs. 2,500 /- Not readily available 20-9-1989 Rs. 2,500/- 1047, SBI, Gudur 8-11-1989 Rs. 2,500/- 331, SBI, Gudur 16-3-1990 Rs. 2,500/- 3087, SBI, Nellore Total . Rs. 12,500/- the petitioner submits that the dead rent payable at Rs. 37. 50 per hectare for 200 acres is Rs. 3,409. 00 which is less than the royalty. It is also contended that the petitioner is liable to pay the surface rent arrears of rs. 1,648/- and the 4th respondent is duty bound to refund Rs. 17,125. 00 to the petitioner, the said amount of arrears of surface rent payable by the petitioner may be directed to be adjusted from the amount of Rs. 17,125. 00 refundable to the petitioner and be directed to refund an amount of rs. 15,477/- or adjust the same for the year 1990-91 and subsequent years. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the request made by the petitioner to re-assess the mineral revenues is concerned, the third respondent stated through their proceedings No. 4724/ m3/89 dated 3-1-1991 that the reassessment of the Mineral Revenue was not possible until the Government issues orders accepting the surrender application and the petitioner was directed to pay the Mineral revenue for the total leased area and the 4th respondent further directed not to issue transport permits until the petitioner clears the dues. So according to the petitioner, when once the petitioner has surrendered the land, he need not pay rent at Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum. ( 6 ) IN reply to the above contentions raised by the petitioner, the Government has filed its counter-affidavit, admitting the lease between the petitioner and the government to an extent of Ac. 1,647. 71 in unsurveyed area in Pulicate lake at Venedu village for a period of 20 years vide G. O. Ms. No. 1157, Industries and Commerce department dated 31-12-1975, but, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the lease was granted as an incentive for setting up an industry in a backward area, but the grant of mining lease promote the industry in the area. No. 1157, Industries and Commerce department dated 31-12-1975, but, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the lease was granted as an incentive for setting up an industry in a backward area, but the grant of mining lease promote the industry in the area. It is further stated that the Government of India has amended 2nd and 3rd Schedules of the mines and Minerals (R and D) Act, 1957 and enhanced the rates of dead rent and as per the revised rates the lessee is liable to pay rs. 150/- per hectare per annum, which are applicable at the time of grant of lease; under Section 9 (3) of the Mines and minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957, the Central Government is empowered to amend the second schedule which deals with the rates of royalty in respect of major minerals so as to enhance or reduce the rates at which the royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as many be specified in the notification. It is further submitted that the Central Government is empowered to enhance the rate of royalty in respect of major minerals once during any period of three years likewise the Central government under Section 9-A (2) of mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act, 1957 have powers to amend the third schedule which deals with rates of dead rent 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 of the dead rent shall take effect from such date as may be specified in the notification. According to the respondents, the revised rates of royalty came into effect from 5-5-1987 and the revised rates of royalty and dead rent were communicated to the petitioner vide their Circular No. 3999/m1/ 87 dated 7-8-87 and the extent of the lease is ac. 1647. 71 which falls on the third category of the third schedule as mentioned above from 22-6-1986, the lease falls on the 11th year of its tenure. As the petitioner has not subjected the permitted quantity for processing at their factory at Tada, for self consumption, hence, the petitioner has to pay the dead rent at Rs. 150. 1647. 71 which falls on the third category of the third schedule as mentioned above from 22-6-1986, the lease falls on the 11th year of its tenure. As the petitioner has not subjected the permitted quantity for processing at their factory at Tada, for self consumption, hence, the petitioner has to pay the dead rent at Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum and their office finalised mineral revenue assessment for 1987-88 charging dead rent from 1-4-1987 to 4-5-1987 @ rs. 37. 50 per hectare per annum and from 5-5-1987 to 31-3-1988 @ Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum under revised rates as the lessee company was selling the material to different carbide factories without processing the lime shell as could be seen on verification of the surrendered way bill and the same was informed to the lessee company vide their office letter No. 1985/ m1/76 dated 30-8-1988 and the petitioner company made a representation dated 10-10-88 requesting to charge the dead rent @ Rs. 90. 00 per hectare per annum stating that they are washing lime shell with water and chemicals and converting into various sizes in their factory at Thada. The above said letter was forwarded to the Director, mines and Geology, Hyderabad, who, by his letter No. 32786 /s1/88 dated 31-11-1989 directed the respondent to reject the representation of the petitioner and directed to collect the amount immediately as demanded. Accordingly, the respondents issued notice to the lessee vide their office letter No,1985/m2/76 dated 27-11-1989 demanding to pay Rs. 1,60,096. 05 ps. upto 31-3-1989. ( 7 ) IT is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner through their letter dated - 29-12-1988 has applied for part surrender of lease over an extent of Ac. 1447. 71 out of ac. 1647. 71 acres retaining Ac. 200. 00 only and also rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the lessee has to give in writing not less than 12 calendar months as per Rule 29 of the Rules, that the lessee has not fulfilled the obligation under rule 29 which prescribes that the petitioner has to pay requisite fee of Rs. 2,000. 00, but the petitioner paid only Rs. 200. 00 towards surrender application and further submitted that the challan was not filed and the petitioner has not submitted proper survey sketch and enclosed a rough sketch to the surrender application. 2,000. 00, but the petitioner paid only Rs. 200. 00 towards surrender application and further submitted that the challan was not filed and the petitioner has not submitted proper survey sketch and enclosed a rough sketch to the surrender application. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Director of mines and Geology, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Director has requested the 4th respondent office to intimate whether the sketch submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 35 of the Rules. Therefore, as the sketch was not to the specifications of Rule 35, the petitioner was requested to attend the survey, but the petitioner did not attend and thereafter the petitioner has filed another application dated 6-7-90. On the basis of the above said application, on 10-7-1990 the Surveyor has visited the land and one of the partners has showed the boundaries of the retained extent and accordingly, the sketch was prepared by surveyor, specifying as per the provisions of Rule 35. It is further stated that the assistant Director, Mines and Geology has inspected the area and reported that the area surrendered is difficulty barren and un-economical, that the due position of the petitioner was at Rs. 1,69,394. 25 and as per the M. R. A. for 1988-89 (1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989), the lessee was in arrears of rs. 1,90,096. 05 ps. Subsequently, the petitioner has paid Rs. 30,000. 00 and for the balance dues of Rs. 1,60,096. 05 ps. a demand notice was issued on 27-11-1989, questioning which the petitioner filed writ petition and as per the orders of this honourable Court in W. P. M. P. No. 23624 of 1989 in W. P. No. 17815 dated 31-1-1990, the transport permit s were issued on the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the amount under demand within four weeks from the date of the order and furnishing bank guarantee for the other half of the amount. Accordingly, the lessee has paid half of the amount on 24-2-1990. Subsequently, for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 @ Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum on total extent, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 1,27,107. 00 upto 31-3-1990 excluding the amount covered under Court stay orders. Therefore, when the application was made by the petitioner, he has not fulfilled rule 29 (2) of the Rules. Therefore, he has to pay the above said dues. The demand of rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum on total extent, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 1,27,107. 00 upto 31-3-1990 excluding the amount covered under Court stay orders. Therefore, when the application was made by the petitioner, he has not fulfilled rule 29 (2) of the Rules. Therefore, he has to pay the above said dues. The demand of rs. 1,27,107/- as the mineral revenue was assessed for the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1990 duly charging dead rent on total extent of the leased area i. e. , Ac. 1647. 71. inasmuch as the Government have not accepted the part surrender application so far, hence, the question of levying dead rent over an extent of Ac. 200. 00 only does not arise. Therefore, the fixation of the dead rent at Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum is also within the frame work of Rules. Therefore, as the action initiated by the respondent is legal and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 8 ) THE issue involved in this writ petition revolves whether the part surrender to an extent of Ac. 1447. 71 made by the petitioner vide his letter dated 29-12-88 is valid or not and the collection of mineral revenue by the respondents on the total extent of ac. 1647. 71 is bad in law. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when once the company has intimated the government with regard to the surrender of ac. 1447. 71, it shall be deemed, under third proviso to Rule 29 of the Rules, that the surrender came into effect from the date of letter addressed by the petitioner i. e. , 29-12-1988. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when once the company has intimated the government with regard to the surrender of ac. 1447. 71, it shall be deemed, under third proviso to Rule 29 of the Rules, that the surrender came into effect from the date of letter addressed by the petitioner i. e. , 29-12-1988. Proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the rules contemplates that where a lessee applies for the surrender of the whole or a part of the leasehold area on the ground that such area is barren or the deposits of minerals have since exhausted or depleted to such an extent that it is no longer economical to work such area, the State government, shall permit the lessee from the date of receipt of the application, to surrender that area if it is satisfied that the leasehold area to be surrendered has been properly surveyed and is contiguous; that the lessee has paid all the dues payable to the Government under the lease upto the date of application; and that the surrender of the area by the lessee has not already been permitted for then once. ( 10 ) SO a reading of the third proviso to rule 29 makes it clear that when an application is made by the lessee for surrender of whole or a part of the leased area on the ground that such area is barren or the deposits of minerals have since exhausted or depleted to such an extent that that it is no longer economical to work such area, the State Government shall permit the lessee from the date of receipt of application to surrender that area or part of it. Accordingly, the petitioner has made application on 29-12-1988, but the respondents have taken objection that the rough sketch annexed to the application is not proper and a Surveyor was deputed from the respondent s office. Ultimately, the matter was finalised on 10-7-1990. It is the admitted case of the respondents that on inspection, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology found that the area surrendered is difficulty barren and uneconomincal. If that is the position, though there is delay in following the procedure with regard to the encloser of map to the application, the extent the petitioner is retaining i. e. , Ac. 200. If that is the position, though there is delay in following the procedure with regard to the encloser of map to the application, the extent the petitioner is retaining i. e. , Ac. 200. 00 the survey conducted by the respondents in accordance with Rule 35 of the Rules, I am satisfied that the area surrendered by the petitioner is difficulty barren and uneconomical. Though no orders were passed by the Government on the application submitted by the petitioner dated 29-12-1988, it can be deemed that the surrender was effective from 29-12-1988 i. e. , the date of application by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay mineral revenue on Ac. 200. 00 alone from 29-12-1988. ( 11 ) THE next contention raised by the petitioner that as per the judgment of the supreme Court with regard to the collection of dead rent at Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum is concerned, according to clause 2 part V of the lease deed dared 22-6-1976, the petitioner is liable to pay dead rent at rs. 37. 50 ps. per hectare per annum from 11th year to 20th year. Clause 2 of the lease deed that subject to the provisions of clause 1 of Part V, during the subsistence of the lease, the lessee shall pay to the State government annual dead rent at the following rate/rates or at such revised rate/ rates which may be communicated in writing to the lessee/lessees by the State government per annum per hectare of the lands demised and described in Part-I of the schedule. I year Nil II year to V year at 12. 50 ps. Per hectare for 66. 86 HEC Rs. 33,342. 50 VI year to X year at 25. 00 for 666. 85 hectares Rs. 83. 356. 25 XI year to XX year at 37. 50 for 666. 85 hectares Rs. 2. 49,968. 75 Total Rs. 3,66,667. 50 Average dead rent per year Rs. 18,338. 35 further the lessee shall remit the annual dead rent in advance for each year in the first week of January into Government treasury under the Head of Account 128 mines and Minerals along with other rents viz. , surface rent and water rate assessed on the land. 75 Total Rs. 3,66,667. 50 Average dead rent per year Rs. 18,338. 35 further the lessee shall remit the annual dead rent in advance for each year in the first week of January into Government treasury under the Head of Account 128 mines and Minerals along with other rents viz. , surface rent and water rate assessed on the land. It is contended by the petitioner that the Government has not till to-day, communicated in writing, to the petitioner the revised rate of the dead rent payable by the petitioner and therefore, the demand of dead rent at Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum is unauthorised. The petitioner is relying on a clause in the agreement which was entered in February, 1976 and as per the contention of the respondents, the central Government has amended schedules 2 and 3 under Section 9 (3) and section 2 (a) of the Mines and Mineral Rules, 1957 which was published in the Official gazette on 5-5-1987. According to it, the dead rent payable by the petitioner in respect of Ac. 200. 00 for the last period i. e. , 11th to 20th year is Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum. When once the rates were revised by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette, it is deemed to be notice to the public at large and as per clause 2 of the lease deed, the petitioner has to pay the revised rates whenever intimated by the respondents. Accordingly, when the central Government revised the rates, the same was communicated to the petitioner through proceedings dated 7-8-1987 that the petitioner has to pay revised rates from 5-5-1987. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 150. 00 per hectare per annum from 5-5-1987. ( 12 ) WITH regard to the collection of the mineral rights tax is concerned, the supreme Court in its judgment The India cement Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu has held that the royalty on mineral rights is a tax and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty, is beyond the competence of the state Legislature because Sec. 9 of the central Act covers the field and the State legislature is denuded of its competence under Entry 23 of List II of Schedule 7 of the constitution. In any event, cess on royalty cannot be sustained under Entry 49 of List II as being a tax on land. Royalty on mineral rights is not a tax on land but a payment for the user of land. However, the levy of said cess was declared to be ultra vires powers of state Legislature only prospectively keeping in view the fact that the amounts were collected by the State. Therefore, in view of the above Ruling of the Apex Court, which was pronounced on 25-10-1989, the state Government has no powers to collect the tax. Hence, the petitioner is not under any obligation to pay any amount towards m. R. T. and cess with effect from 25-10-1989. ( 13 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in a decision the K. C. P. Limited (Ramakrishna cements) Macherla, rep. by its Plant Manager sri K. Venkataramaiah and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its secretary, Industries and Commerce department, Hyderabad and others has followed the judgment of the Supreme court in India Cements case (supra ). Therefore, it cannot be held that the State is entitled to collect the Mineral Rights Tax upto 12-4-1990. ( 14 ) IN the result, firsly/ it is declared that the petitioner has surrendered Ac. 1447. 71 of land as per third proviso to Rule 29 of the rules to the Government through his letter dated 29-12-1988 and he is in possession of an extent of Ac. 200. 00 of land as per the lease deed. ( 15 ) SECONDLY, it is declared that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of rs. 150/- per hectare per annum towards revised dead rent instead of Rs. 37. 50 per hectare per annum, as revised by the central Government under Section 9 (3) of the Mines and Mineral Regulation and development Act, 1957, which came into force from 5-5-1987. As the petitioner has agreed to pay revised rates of dead rent under clause 2 Part V of the lease deed dated 22-6-1976 for the last period i. e. , llth to 20th year. As the petitioner has agreed to pay revised rates of dead rent under clause 2 Part V of the lease deed dated 22-6-1976 for the last period i. e. , llth to 20th year. ( 16 ) THIRDLY, it is declared that the State government has no power to collect mineral Rights Tax from 25-40-1989, on which date the Supreme Court, in India cements case (supra) has held that the state Legislature has no competence under entry 23 of List II of Schedule 7 of the constitution of India to make legislation empowering the State Government to collect Mineral Rights Tax. ( 17 ) IN view of the above declarations, both the parties are directed to settle their disputes with regard to the payment and refund of excess amounts paid by the petitioner, if any, and in such an event the same may be adjusted for the next lease year. ( 18 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.