FORCIBLE LAND OCCUPATION IN ARA: A FAMILY’S BATTLE FOR ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AMID ALLEGATIONS AND MAFIA INVOLEMENT

FORCIBLE LAND OCCUPATION IN ARA: A FAMILY’S BATTLE FOR ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AMID ALLEGATIONS AND MAFIA INVOLEMENT

13-AUG-ENG 1

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA------------------------In the bustling city of Arrah, the administrative headquarters of Bhojpur district in Bihar, India, a longstanding land dispute has escalated into a serious conflict, highlighting the pervasive issue of illegal land grabbing in rural and semi-urban areas. On August 5, 2025, a group of individuals allegedly forcibly entered and damaged a 50-decimal plot of ancestral land belonging to a family from Arrah's Mahajan Tola No. 1, leading to the filing of an FIR (First Information Report) at Nawada Police Station. The complainants, Asim Sundar Das, Vibhuti Kumar Jain, and Sonu Kumar Jain—members of a minority community—claim that their property, held peacefully for generations, has been targeted by local land mafias. This incident has drawn attention to the challenges of land ownership in Bihar, where outdated records, bureaucratic delays, and powerful interests often leave vulnerable families at a disadvantage.

Bhojpur district, established in 1972 from the historic Shahabad region, spans 2,473 square kilometers with a population exceeding 2.7 million (2011 Census). Known for its fertile Gangetic plains and agricultural economy, the district is also notorious for land disputes fueled by rapid urbanization, inheritance issues, and illegal encroachments. The case at hand involves a plot under Khata No. 5, Khesra Nos. 26 and 27, totaling 49 decimals, located on Station Road in Nawada, Arrah. The family alleges that the accused, including notorious land mafia Devki Singh Yadav and his associate Prem Kumar, used heavy machinery to break locks, cut trees, and occupy the land, threatening violence in the process. Despite multiple appeals to authorities and ongoing court cases, the family feels justice is eluding them. This article delves into the details of the dispute, the family’s history, the incident, legal actions, and the broader implications for land rights in Bihar.

The disputed land has been in the possession of the complainants' family for over nine decades. According to Sonu Kumar Jain, the family's ancestors purchased the 50-decimal plot in 1931 through a registered sale deed (kabala). The property was subsequently divided among heirs in 1982 via a court-registered partition (bantwara), with receipts and revenue payments (malkhana) issued in the names of their late mother Savitri Devi and Urmila Jain. The family maintains that they have held peaceful possession (dakhil kabja) of the land, paying property taxes and submitting applications for mutation (parimarjan) to update records in their names. However, they accuse the Circle Officer, Pallavi Kumari Gupta, and clerk Bishudev Singh of deliberately withholding documents and delaying the process, despite all required evidence being submitted.

The family's lineage traces back to their great-grandfather Shyam Sundar Das and grandfather Rishabh Sundar Das, both renowned lawyers in Arrah. Rishabh Sundar Das had three sons: Ajit Sundar Das, Jagat Sundar Das, and Ranjit Sundar Das. The complainants are their descendants—Asim Sundar Das (son of Ajit Sundar Das), Vibhuti Kumar Jain (son of Jagat Sundar Das), and Sonu Kumar Jain (son of Ranjit Sundar Das). The land is divided equally between Asim and Vibhuti (24.5 decimals each), with Sonu holding 1 decimal. The family emphasizes their minority community status and peaceful nature, stating they have never engaged in conflicts and always respected the law.

The dispute intensified when the accused allegedly attempted to forge records (farzi mutation) to claim the land. The family discovered unauthorized changes in revenue records and filed applications to cancel them (farzi mutation cancellation). They also submitted complaints to the District Magistrate (DM), Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Superintendent of Police (SP), and Additional District Magistrate (ADM), but claim no action was taken until recently.

On August 5, 2025, the dispute took a violent turn when Devki Singh Yadav, son of late Hargovind Ahir from K.G. Road under Nawada Police Station, along with Prem Kumar (owner of One Step Coaching on K.G. Road) and 15-20 antisocial elements, allegedly forcibly entered the property. According to the FIR (No. 518/25) filed at Nawada Police Station, the accused broke the locks on the main gate, used a JCB machine to demolish the boundary wall, and cut several green trees, including a bel (sacred fig) tree—considered auspicious in Hinduism, especially during the Saawan month. When confronted, the accused reportedly threatened the family with dire consequences, claiming the action was authorized by the Circle Officer (a claim the family disputes).

The family asserts that the land has no trees or structures belonging to the accused and that the act was a blatant attempt at illegal occupation. They highlight that the accused's claim of owning the land is false, as their ancestors purchased it in 1931, and all records support their possession. The incident was captured on video, which allegedly shows Prem Kumar present, despite his denial of involvement.This forcible action violated several laws, including IPC Section 447 (criminal trespass) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation), as well as environmental regulations against cutting trees without permission. The family, fearing for their safety and property, immediately filed the FIR and sought protection from authorities.

The family has pursued multiple legal avenues to protect their rights:

• FIR at Nawada Police Station: On August 5, 2025, FIR No. 518/25 was registered under relevant IPC sections for trespass, damage, and threats.
• Court Cases: Two ongoing cases—JBC 24/2025-26, 25/2025-26—are pending in court, challenging the alleged forged mutations.
• Applications to Authorities: The family submitted written complaints to the DM, SDM, SP, ADM, and other officials, detailing the illegal occupation and requesting immediate intervention. They met the officials personally to explain the situation but claim no action was taken until after the August 5 incident.
• ADM's Order: The ADM issued a notice prohibiting any work on the land until a final court decision, ordering both parties' locks on the gate to prevent further access.

A meeting was held on August 2, 2025, at the Nawada Police Station premises to resolve the dispute. Attended by Arrah Nawada Police and the Circle Officer, the meeting concluded with a decision to await the court's final verdict on the pending cases, after which appropriate action would be taken. The family views this as a temporary relief but criticizes the lack of immediate enforcement.

Devki Singh Yadav claims his ancestors purchased the land in 1929 and that mutations (fate-e-khanaa) were done in their favor, with receipts issued accordingly. He asserts the work on August 5 was lawful, based on Circle Officer orders. Prem Kumar denies any involvement, stating he has no hand in the matter, despite video evidence allegedly showing him at the site. The family dismisses these claims as baseless, pointing to their 1931 purchase deed and continuous possession.

This case exemplifies the challenges of land disputes in Bihar, where illegal possession by mafias is rampant. With over 1.5 lakh land cases pending in the Bihar High Court, delays exacerbate victims' suffering. In Bhojpur, land scarcity and mafia influence make such encroachments common, often targeting vulnerable families like the complainants, who belong to a minority community and lack agricultural land.

Legal implications include:

• Civil Remedies: Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the family can seek recovery of possession through court, with interim injunctions to prevent further damage.
• Criminal Prosecution: The FIR invokes IPC Sections 447, 427 (mischief causing damage), and 506, potentially leading to arrests and trials.
• Revenue Investigation: The Circle Officer must verify records under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, which mandates time-bound resolutions.
• Environmental Violations: Cutting trees without permission violates the Bihar Preservation of Trees Act, 2010, warranting additional charges.

Challenges include bureaucratic delays, as seen in the family's unsuccessful mutation applications, and mafia intimidation, which discourages reporting. The family's minority status adds a layer of vulnerability, potentially qualifying for protection under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if applicable.

To resolve such disputes:

• Digitize land records under DILRMP for transparency.
• Strengthen ADR mechanisms like Lok Adalats.
• Provide legal aid to vulnerable families under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
• Enforce strict anti-mafia laws, including the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

The family, peace-loving and law-abiding, seeks justice to protect their ancestral property and lives, urging swift action from authorities.

The forcible occupation of the Jain family's ancestral land in Arrah highlights the urgent need for effective land dispute resolution in Bhojpur. Despite the family's documented ownership since 1931, alleged mafias like Devki Singh Yadav and Prem Kumar Singh have attempted illegal seizure, causing damage and threats. Legal actions, including FIR 518/25 and ADM's interim order, provide hope, but delays underscore systemic issues. As the family—descendants of respected lawyers—continues their fight, this case calls for stringent enforcement to protect vulnerable citizens and uphold property rights in Bihar. Justice delayed is justice denied; swift resolution is essential for restoring faith in the system.

On the other hand, Sonu Jain said that he had not got any other of the CO regarding illegal occupation and he also did not know about as to when the ADM had issued interim order.