JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:- In all the above appeals the parties are the same and the controversies raised are intimately connected and dependent on each other, hence all the cases are disposed of by one single order.

2. Land measuring 19 bighas was granted by the ruler of the erstwhile State of Ratlam in favour of ancestors of respondents Shantilal and Poonam Chand Pitaliyas (hereinafter referred to as Pitaliyas) for installation of a Ginning factory. Ancestors of Kantilal Jhalani and other appellants (hereinafter referred to as Jhalanis) entered into partnership with Pitaliyas and the partnership started a Ginning factory on a portion of the above 19 bighas of land. The names of Jhalanis and Pitaliyas were recorded in the revenue records in respect of the entire land. The above 19 bighas of land had some different survey numbers but subsequently at the time of settlement in Ratlam in the year 1956-57, the numbers were changed to survey numbers 120 and 121. Survey No.120 comprised of 2 biswas and survey No.121 of 18 bighas and 18 biswas. According to the Jhalanis in execution of a decree against Pitaliyas the above land was sold and Jhalanis purchased the said land in an auction. Thereafter, an application was moved by the Jhalanis on 13th April, 1951 for mutation of their names before the Tehsildar in respect of the entire lands bearing survey Nos.120 and 121 leaving such portion of the land on which the Ginning factory was standing. The Tehsildar vide his order dated 20th February, 1953 allowed the application and passed an order mutating the names of Nihalanis on the entire 19 bighas of land. The said mutation was allowed on the basis of compromise between Pitaliyas and Jhalanis and also on the basis of a sale certificate issued by the Civil Court.

3. The Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) started acquisition proceedings for a housing scheme under the provisions of the Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and issued a, notification on 28th August, 1964 under S. 68 of the Act. Survey Nos.120 and 121 were shown in the notification leaving out some area of Survey No.121. In the acquisition proceedings, the Trust obtained possession of the acquired land on 21st March, 1968.

4. The Collector started suo motu proceedings under S.50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and issued a notice on 17th December, 1970 to the Jhalanis stating that the mutation proceedings did not appear to be legal. It is not necessary to state the details of other proceedings by which the Jhalanis went to the higher authorities as ultimately the matter came back to the Collector by remand. The Jhalanis contested the proceedings before the Collector and prayed for the cancellation of the notice dated 15th February, 1972 which was issued afresh by the Collector after the remand of the case to him. The Collector ultimately by an order dated 31st March, 1977 set aside the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar and gave a direction that the Tehsildar, Ratlam will again make the same entry in the revenue records which was done previously in respect of disputed land. It was further directed that thereafter the Tehsildar will do proper investigation and analyse all the concerned facts and events which had happened in the case and take steps for making the record up-to-date. Particularly he will see by which lease and on what conditions originally how much land was given for factory purpose by the State and whether that lease is effective or lapsed. An appeal filed by the Jhalanis to the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by order dated 11th December, 1981. The Jhalanis then filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. This appeal filed by the Jhalanis was allowed in their favour by the Board of Revenue by order dated 26th March, 1983. The Board inter alia held that pending mutation proceedings, there was compromise between the parties, objections were withdrawn by the Pitaliyas and no a