JUDGMENT 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. 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 necessary permission is granted for mining operation on fulfilment of necessary condition in regard to these lands, he shall move the Court for modification of the injunction order in respect thereof. 6. 63 and 64 area 1,88 hectares are concerned, which are not purchased by the petitioner. He has further submitted that necessary permission is granted for mining operation on fulfilment of necessary condition in regard to these lands, he shall move the Court for modification of the injunction order in respect thereof. 6. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs or the counter claimants as much as they have no title to the lands, winch have been transferred by respondents Nos. 8 to 10. Respondents Nos. 8 to 10 having been recorded as Khatedar in 1960, the filing of the suit in January, 1996 itself indicates that they have no right, title and interest and, therefore, in the absence of the essential fact being established for grant of injunction, the Courts below should not have granted injunction restraining them from carrying out me mining operation. 7. From the perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 are claiming their title through a common ancestor Chotte Khan, Abdul, Samad, Abdul Sattarand Mustafa Khan are the brothers of Smt. Hasmat Tara, Smt. Rahmat Begum and Smt. Jebun Begum and thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs or the counter-claimants have no semblance of title in the suit land. Of course, the question will be required to be determined after full trial. That shows that there is a prima facie case for grant of an injunction. The question is not of prima facie case but the Court has also to look into the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Admittedly, Abdul Samad, Abdul Sattar and Mustafa Khan have a right, title and interest in the properly. They had transferred 5.74 hectares of land except Khasra Nos. 63 and 64 favour of the petitioner. The lands transferred is also mutated in the names of the petitioners. The petitioners have got the mining right transferred in their favour and it would be without saying that they would suffer an irreparable Injury if they are not permitted to carry out the mining operation. The balance of convenience would not be fully in favour of the plaintiffs because at the most after the grant of mining lease, the plaintiffs and the counter-claimants have a right of compensation for the surface disturbance. The balance of convenience would not be fully in favour of the plaintiffs because at the most after the grant of mining lease, the plaintiffs and the counter-claimants have a right of compensation for the surface disturbance. When the mining lease is granted to the petitioners and the plaintiffs/ counter-claimants interest can be safeguarded, if the petitioners are saddled with the terms in consonance with Section 89 of the Act. That would be the best course which should be adopted by the Courts instead of issuing blanket order of injunction. The imposition of the term to deposit Rs. 50 lacs and a local surety of the same amount would be too onerous, which would not even be the price of the land and, therefore, cannot be upheld.The orders of all the three Courts namely, Board of Revenue, Revenue Appellate Authority and Sub-Divisional Officers are set aside. Sub-section (4) of Section 89 lays down that if the rights of any person are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of the land for which the mining lease was granted, the State Govt, or its assignee shall pay to such person compensation for such infringement and the amount of such compensation shall be calculated by the Collector and if its award is not accepted by the civil Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The parties concerned having prima facie interest in the lands and would be entitled for compensation for surface disturbance. The petitioner M/s. J. K. White Cement Works is directed to approach the Collector for determination of compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Act within a period of fifteen days. All the parties to the writ petitions shall appear before the Collector, Chittorgarh on 5-9-97. The Collector shall determine the compensation for infringement of right of occupation and disturbance of the surface of the lands 5.74 hectares of village Meeno ka Kanthariya, District Chittorgarh in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 as nearly as may be. On determination of the compensation by the Collector, the petitioner shall furnish solvent security and a surety of the like amount before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh where the suit is pending and thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to excavate the minerals from the lands in question. 8. On determination of the compensation by the Collector, the petitioner shall furnish solvent security and a surety of the like amount before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh where the suit is pending and thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to excavate the minerals from the lands in question. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions stand disposed of.Order accordingly. *******