### Longstanding Jamabandi cannot be cancelled via summary proceedings to deny land acquisition compensation.

The petitioner claimed title to 175 square meters of land in Mauza-Barun, Aurangabad. The land was recorded as ‘gairmajarua malik’ in the Khatiyan, but the petitioner asserted it was settled in favor of his ancestor, Dukhan Ram, via kabooliyat bandobasti in 1950, with a jamabandi (revenue record) created in 1955.

For the construction of a road over bridge on NH-2, the authorities initiated Title Verification Case No. 12/2019-2020 to determine compensation eligibility.

The Circle Officer and L.R.D.C. recommended rejection of the raiyati claim, a decision confirmed by the Collector on 09.05.2025, on the grounds that the land was ‘gairmajarua malik’.

The petitioner challenged these orders via writ jurisdiction, alleging discrimination as similarly situated landholders were compensated.

the principle that a longstanding jamabandi cannot be cancelled through summary proceedings

Maya Devi Ors. v. The State of Bihar Ors. (2014) 3 PLJR 584, which established that if the State intends to dispute a decades-old title or settlement, it must move a competent Civil Court for a declaration of its title; it cannot simply evict the occupant or deny land acquisition compensation through executive fiat

The Court observed that the jamabandi in favor of the petitioner’s ancestors had existed since 1955 and the family had been in peaceful possession for over 70 years. By rejecting the raiyati claim in a summary title verification proceeding, the State had "usurped the powers of a Civil Court"

The Court reasoned that the ‘gairmajarua malik’ entry in the Khatiyan alone does not empower the State to ignore decades of revenue records and possession. Applying the Maya Devi precedent, the Court held that the State’s only legal recourse to annul a settlement or jamabandi is to file a title suit in a Civil Court. Until such title is legally declared in favor of the State, the petitioner cannot be deprived of compensation for the acquired land

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, to keep the admissible compensation amount in a separate account. It further directed that if the State files a title suit, it must be decided within one year. The petitioner was granted liberty to pray for the release of the compensation if the suit is not decided within one year due to the State's non-cooperation