BOSTON ?EUR??,,????'??? The state?EUR??,,????'???s high court ruled recently that some property owners abutting abandoned railroad beds may have a legal claim to the land which could drive up the cost of acquiring rails-to-trails bike paths. The Supreme Judicial Court decision, the result of a lawsuit by property owners in Western Massachusetts, means that thousands of people who live next to unused railroad rights-of-way own the land to the ?EUR??,,????'??centerpoint?EUR??,,????'????EUR??,,????'??? of the rail bed, attorneys said. While calling the SJC victory ?EUR??,,????'??sweeping,?EUR??,,????'????EUR??,,????'??? attorneys for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, said the high court ignored a key legal question: Once the trains stopped running, did the easements expire? Some easements date back to the mid-19th century and attorneys argued the easements ended once trains stopped running. In the Williamsburg case, train service ended some 40 years ago. Alexander A. Bernhard, a lawyer for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, said the easements survive under state and federal law because the restrictions on property were created to support transportation, regardless of the mode. Hikers, walkers, and bicyclists are - legally speaking - modern-day versions of steam and diesel engines, he said. Craig Della Penna, the New England representative of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, said only about 15 of the 60 rail trails now in planning, acquisition, or construction in Massachusetts will be affected by the SJC?EUR??,,????'???s decision. He, as well as a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, said the SJC ruling will have no impact on rail trails being built over MBTA-controlled land. Della Penna also said only a few hundred yards of the 2.5-mile Williamsburg trail are impacted by the SJC decision. He said rail-to-trail projects in Milford, Stockbridge, Andover, and Newburyport are among those that could be halted because of property rights disputes.