The court interpreted Section 89(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and held that the State Government or its assignee shall pay compensation to any person whose rights are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of the land for which the mining lease was granted.

1. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The land in question is Khasra Nos. 63 to 70 in total 7.09 hectares to village Meeno ka Kanthariya, District Chittorgarh. The land was recorded in the Khatedari of Abdul Samat Khan, respondent No. 8; Abdul Sattar, respondent No. 9 and Mustafa Khan, respondent No. 10 in the year 1960. By registered sale deeds dated 8-9-95, 14-9-95, 28-9-95 and 29-9-95, Respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 transferred 5.74 hectares of land except Khasra Nos. 63 and 64 to petitioner No. 1 M/s. J. K. White Cement Works. On 9-6-97 vide Annex. 9 the land purchased i.e. 5.74 hectares was mutated in the name of petitioner No. 1 and the relevant entry was made in the record of rights (jamabandi). On 24-10-81 mining lease of the land in question, was granted to one S.C. Nyati along with other lands. On 18-5-89 the mining lease was transferred by said Nyati in favour of petitioner No. 1. On 31-12-85 Nyati got the document executed by respondents Nos. 8 to 10 that they have no objection to extraction of mineral on the land in question. On 29-6-89 the lease deed was executed by the State in favour of the petitioner along with a map Annex. 7 showing the lease area.

3. In January, 1996 respondents Nos. 4 to 7 i.e. Rukya Begum, Gulab Khan, Mustaq Khan and Khurshid Begum filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit land and for injunction restraining the petitioner from carrying out the mining operation on the land. The petitioner, respondents Nos. 8 to 10 and Smt. Hasmat Tara, Smt. Aimna, Smt. Rahmat Begum, Smt. Jebun and Smt. Bibi were joined party defendants in the suit. The case was registered as Suit No. 5/96. Smt. Hasmat Tara, Smt. Rahmat Begum and Smt. Jebun Begum have filed the counter-claim claiming declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit properties. The counter-claim was registered as Case No. 4/96. Right, title and interest in the suit property was claimed by the plaintiffs and the counter claimants on the basis that they are the heirs of the original owner of the suit lands and, therefore, they have a share in the property along with respondents No. 8 to 10.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application for temporary injunction was moved. An injunction was granted in the suit and the counter-claim on 12-2-96. In an appeal, the order was maintained by order dated 25-5-96 (Annex 3). The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. M/s. J. K. White Cement Works had preferred two revision petitions against the orders passed in both the suits. The vendors of the petitioner, respondents Nos. 8 to 10 have also filed two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, All the four revision petitions were partly allowed by the Board of Revenue. Permission to excavate the mineral was granted on the condition that the petitioner shall get the land in dispute entered in their name under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and the rules framed thereunder. (The counsel for the petitioner has produced the order dated 9-6-97 (Annex 9) of mutation of the land purchased) and the permission shall be obtained from the District Collector, Chittorgarh for excavation of minerals from the purchased lands. In the alternative M/s. J. K. White Cement Works after getting their names entered into the relevant revenue records, shall submit security of Rs. 50 lacs and a local surety of the like amount, both in the forms of Bank guaranteed and thereafter they could continue mining activity till the disposal of the suits. The order of the Board of Revenue is challenged in these petitions.

5. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioners has candidly submitted that he is not challenging the order of injunction restraining the mining operation so far as Khasra Nos. 63 and 64 area 1,88 hectares are concerned, which are not purchased by the petitioner. He has further submitted that neces