MAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit by the State and rejoinder by the petitioners have been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. Petitioners are residents of Bariyarpur Bazar, PS-Bariyarpur in the District of Munger. They apprehend not only their eviction from the lands which they were occupying over 5 to 6 decades but denial of compensation as well.

(2.) In the writ petition, they have asserted and which is not denied by the State, that they are in possession of the land in question and resided thereon for over 5 decades. A road overbridge across the railway line is to be made. State had sought to acquire the lands for the same. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of certain lands. Lands were acquired and 100% compensation paid but for part of the lands, which are also intended to be utilized for the said bridge, instead of acquiring them upon payment of compensation, enquiries have been started with regard to correctness or validity of the Jamabandis in favour of those persons. It is averred in the writ petition that this is solely for the purposes of forcefully evicting the petitioner's from their lands and their houses by cancelling the Jamabandi and denying them compensation. In other words, what is submitted is that, only to avoid payment of compensation, State is taking steps to cancel longstanding Jamabandi whereafter they would be evicted without any compensation.

(3.) State filed a counter affidavit. State does not deny that for part of the lands, acquisition proceedings were completed and compensation paid but in relation to the petitioners, State admits that though the petitioners have been in possession for decades, it seems that settlements were wrongly created/made in their favour. Stand of the State is that when records were being examined, it was found that these lands in the cadastral survey, which was carried out more than a century back, were shown as either Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or at places Qaisar-e-Hind. Therefore, according to State, prima facie settlements could not have been made. Further enquiry revealed that the Jamabandis, which have been created several decades back, do not appear to be very authentic or correct. State rebuts the contention of the petitioners that they would be summarily evicted and denied compensation. State submits that they would act in accordance with law and have initiated a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi whereafter, upon Jamabandis being cancelled, they would be evicted. In such a situation, State admits that they may not be liable to be compensated. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, petitioners reassert their contention, that they have been in possession which position stands undisputed.