An entry in the cadastral survey is not conclusive

An entry in the cadastral survey over 100 years old with regard to nature of land is not an entry for all times in future but an entry with regard to existing state of affairs then. It does not preclude the change of nature of the land through passage of time

The present petition was filed by the Petitioners apprehending their eviction from the lands under their occupation for over five decades besides denial of compensation. It was contended that they were in possession of the land for over five decades. State had sought to acquire lands for constructing a road over bridge. Necessary proceedings were initiated, lands were acquired and 100% compensation was paid but for part of the lands instead of they being acquired enquiries started with regard to correctness or validity of the Jamabandis in favour of the persons in possession of said lands.

The petitioners contended that the enquiries were initiated solely to forcefully evict them from their lands and houses by cancelling the Jamabandi and denying them compensation. State on the other hand contradicted stand of the Petitioner arguing that the settlements appeared to have been wrongly created/ made in their favour as upon examination of records 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 and prima facie settlements could not have been made and Jamabandi made would have to be cancelled. Petitioners contended that wherever there would be any conflict of private and public interest, Petitioners were ready and willing to give up their lands for public good provided proceedings are duly initiated and they are compensated and/or rehabilitated as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

The Court observed that it was not in dispute that the land in the cadastral survey, which was over 100 years old, was shown as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind.

The present petition was filed by the Petitioners apprehending their eviction from the lands under their occupation for over five decades besides denial of compensation. It was contended that they were in possession of the land for over five decades. State had sought to acquire lands for constructing a road over bridge. Necessary proceedings were initiated, lands were acquired and 100% compensation was paid but for part of the lands instead of they being acquired enquiries started with regard to correctness or validity of the Jamabandis in favour of the persons in possession of said lands.

The petitioners contended that the enquiries were initiated solely to forcefully evict them from their lands and houses by cancelling the Jamabandi and denying them compensation. State on the other hand contradicted stand of the Petitioner arguing that the settlements appeared to have been wrongly created/ made in their favour as upon examination of records 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 and prima facie settlements could not have been made and Jamabandi made would have to be cancelled. Petitioners contended that wherever there would be any conflict of private and public interest, Petitioners were ready and willing to give up their lands for public good provided proceedings are duly initiated and they are compensated and/or rehabilitated as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

The Court observed that it was not in dispute that the land in the cadastral survey, which was over 100 years old, was shown as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind. An entry in the cadastral survey over 100 years old with regard to nature of land is not an entry for all times in future but an entry with regard to existing state of affairs then. It does not preclude the change of nature of the land through passage of time. It is not an entry which would hold good for all times to come and would bind all parties and not subject to change either by settlement or user and merely because in the cadastral survey a land is shown as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, cannot be a determinative factor today. It only indicates history.

Based on the above, the next thing that came up was whether nature of such land as above can be changed? To this, it was held that State and its officials are still protecting a misconception that once a land is recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam or such land, no settlement can be made by anyone at any point of time. The legal position as well settled indicates that such lands can be settled and this being so the position it cannot be said that as the lands were recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, the settlements in respect thereof and the Jamabandi in respect thereof becomes suspect or illegal. There cannot be any such presumption or assumption.

The Petitioners in the instant case has undisputedly been in possession for over 50 years and the Jamabandis were admittedly created long back. Where there are such disputes, involving question of title, right of possession, especially when long standing possession is not disputed, then the only forum available to the State for cancellation of Jamabandi is resort to Civil Court and not in a summary proceeding by any revenue officer of the State.
Thus, if State wants Petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the Petitioners have been residing for last 50 years, it must pay them due compensation and take action in accordance with the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act. If they intend to cancel the Jamabandi then it is for them to move the Civil Court for a declaration that the alleged settlement and/or Jamabandi is illegal and cannot be accepted and let the title of the State be so declared but till such time the dispute is resolved, the Petitioners cannot be evicted by the State in any manner nor can just compensation for acquisition be denied to them.

[Maya Devi vs. The State of Bihar]
(Patna HC, 28.03.2014)