ORAL ORDER 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 petitioners 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. 4. 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. 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. 5. It is now matter of record that proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi leading to denial of compensation while acquiring the land is admitted. They submit that wherever there is a conflict of private and public interest, petitioners are 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 which Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.2014 but surely the State cannot, by this indirect method, mala fide deny them the benefits which the law gives them. 6. Having considered the matter, the first thing to be noted here is that there is no dispute that the land in the cadastral survey, which is over a 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. It is 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. This, merely because in the cadastral survey a land is shown as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, is not a determinative factor today. It only shows the history. 7. The next thing is whether the nature of land being as aforesaid does the law permit change? This, merely because in the cadastral survey a land is shown as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, is not a determinative factor today. It only shows the history. 7. The next thing is whether the nature of land being as aforesaid does the law permit change? In my view, State and its officials are still harbouring 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 sooner this wrong impression is erased, the better it is because on this spacious plea, lot of damage is being done. It is well settled judicially that such lands can be settled. That being so, 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 becomes illegall. There cannot be any such presumption or assumption. Those assumptions and presumptions are clearly misplaced. I can here usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandeshwari Prasad Narain Deo and others Versus State of Bihar and another since reported in 1956 BLJR 24 as also to the case of Laxman Sahai and others Versus State of Bihar and others since reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 457 . 8. We then come to the third stage. Who is to determine the validity of long standing Jamabandi created? It is not one of those cases where overnight people have turned up and some papers have been manufactured. Here, the petitioners undisputedly have been in possession for over 50 years. State, in its counter affidavit itself, agrees that Jamabandis were created long back but they point out two fallacies to challenge its correctness or authenticity. In my view, it is again well settled that where there are such disputes, which involve 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. 9. 9. The result of these three progressive stages is that if the State wants the petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the petitioners have been residing for last 50 years, they must pay 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. 10. Here, I can usefully refer to the case of M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills Versus State of Rajasthan and others since reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1681 wherein it was held as under : “… … …We hopefully expect that the Central Government will not try to shirk its legal obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities, for we maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen, and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand.” 11. It would always be advisable in the larger public interest for the State to come to a negotiated settlement in this regard because, admittedly, in the facts of present case, petitioners are not overnight occupiers of lands. They only claim compensation. They have been on the lands for over 50 years. They have been so recorded in the Government revenue records. Those records are not records prepared in recent past. 12. Thus, in my view, the writ petition must, thus, succeed. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. State is restrained from proceeding to either cancel the Jamabandi or evict the petitioners or deny the petitioners’ compensation except by authority and in accordance with law, as indicated above.