CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of Ann. P and for a direction to the respondent not to proceed with the recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,571/- as per Ann. L. ( 2 ) THE facts in this case are as follows : the petitioner has taken the land measuring 7, acres, 35 guntas in Sy. No. 120/3 of Budappanahalli village, Byadgi Taluk of Haveri District, on lease in a public auction. The lease deed was executed by the State Government somewhere in the year 1996 for a period of 5 years, in the first instance. Thereafter, the lease is being renewed from year to year. During the subsistence of this lease, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 41,571/- as dead rent. Under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), this was questioned by the petitioner by way of preferring a revision petition is No. 19/2001 before the Director of Mines and Geology. The learned Director dismissed the revision petition holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the dead rent as demanded by the Department. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner in this petition. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had not carried on any activities of quarrying, the petitioner is not liable to pay either royalty or the dead rent and therefore, the demand made by the Department is illegal. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the correspondence between the Office of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines and the Secretaries of the Department of Mines and Geology of all Governments and contended that as the petitioner has not taken any steps for quarrying in the land in question, she is not liable to pay the dead rent. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer to Sections 9 and 9 (A) of the Act, which read as follows :"sec. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer to Sections 9 and 9 (A) of the Act, which read as follows :"sec. 9: (1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any (mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee) from the leased area after such commencement, at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. (2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any (mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee) from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. [ (2a) The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, shall not be liable to pay any royalty in respect of any coal consumed by a workman engaged in a colliery provided that such consumption by the workman does not exceed one-third of a tonne per month. ] (3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification: (Provided that the Central Govt. shall not enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of four years.) sec. 9a: (1) The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any other law for the time being in force, pay to the State Govt. 9a: (1) The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any other law for the time being in force, pay to the State Govt. , every year, dead rent at such rate as may be specified, for the time being, in the Third Schedule, for all the areas included in the instrument of lease : provided that where the holder of such mining lease becomes liable, under Sec. 9, to pay royalty for any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area he shall be liable to pay either such royalty or the dead rent in respect of that area, whichever is greater. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Third Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which rent shall be payable in respect of any area covered by a mining lease and such enhancement or reduction shall take effect from such date as may be specified in the notification: (Provided that the Central Govt. shall not enhance the rate of dead rent in respect of any such area more than once during any period of four years.)" ( 5 ) UNDER Section 9, the holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act, is liable to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent. In the case on hand, the case of the petitioner is that she has not removed or consumed any mineral and therefore, she is not liable to pay any royalty. The impugned notice is not for payment of royalty but for payment of dead rent. Under Section 9 (A) of the Act, as referred to above, irrespective of the fact that petitioner has removed or consumed any mineral, she is liable to pay the dead rent, if, she is in possession of the land under the lease. The circular referred to by the petitioner, which is at Ann. Q, is to the effect that wherever a person is not in possession of the property consequent on the termination of the lease, there is no liability to pay the dead rent. The circular referred to by the petitioner, which is at Ann. Q, is to the effect that wherever a person is not in possession of the property consequent on the termination of the lease, there is no liability to pay the dead rent. The facts in this case are that, admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the property under the lease. If that is so, irrespective of the fact whether she has removed or consumed any mineral from the land in question, she is liable to pay the dead rent under Section 9 (A) of the Act. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, in my opinion, the director has rightly dismissed the revision petition confirming the demand made by the Officer demanding payment of certain amount as dead rent. ( 7 ) THE petitioner submits that she is the owner of the land and therefore, she is not liable to pay any royalty or dead rent. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken the property under the lease in respect of the land in question in a public auction. If that is so, she cannot be both the owner and also lessee at the same time. ( 8 ) HENCE, the following order : writ Petition is rejected. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .