Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) IN all the four writ petitions, the facts are identical, and as such, they have been heard analogously and are disposed of by this judgment treating the matter as on day's list. It may be noted that the facts in detail have been argued only in respect of the writ petition filed by Sk. Liakat Ali & Anr. and in this judgment. these facts will, be discussed. The petitioner's case is that they are in occupation of Plot Nos. 4583 and 4588 on Mouza Galsi, J.L. No. 99, Khatian No. 1868 in the district of Burdwan and they have allegedly purchased the aforesaid plots from the successor -in -interest of one Sreenath Roy. In support of their alleged title the petitioners had relied on record of rights and also on certain deeds which have been annexed to the writ petition.
(2.) FROM a perusal of the record of rights it appears that the said record of rights prepared on the basis of cadastral survey shows that the superior interest in the land vests in Bharat Samrat and the name of one Sreenath Roy has been recorded as Raiyat Sthitiban. The said right of occupancy raiyat was reflected only in the cadastral survey. The petitioners have not disclosed the latest record of rights after revisional survey. It cannot be disputed that record of right is a document of possession and on the basis of such a document there may be presumption of title in certain cases. In the instant case, the plots in question, viz. Plot No. 4588 has been recorded as a road and Plot No. 4589 has been recorded as a slope. Therefore, none of them was recorded as either homestead or agricultural land.
(3.) NOW the case of the petitioners is that on the said plots of land they have made certain structures and are in occupation of those structures. Now in the name of widening the G.T. Road, if the respondents want the possession of the land occupied by the petitioners, the respondents must initiate acquisition proceedings under the provision of National Highways Act, 1956. Admittedly in the instant case no such acquisition proceeding has been initiated and it is contended by the petitioner that in the absence of such a proceeding it is not open to the respondent -authorities to evict the petitioners from the aforesaid plot of land or to demolish the structures which are standing on those plots of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in some other matters this Court has passed an order directing the Additional District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Burdwan to find out on the basis of a spot enquiry whether the petitioners in those cases are occupying any portion of the land which can be called a part of the national highway, and similar order may be passed in these batch of cases.;