Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2000 passed by learned Sub -ordinate Judge -1 -cum -Land Acquisition Judge, Jamshedpur in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 1 of 1989, whereby the award/compensation was allowed in favour or the applicant/respondent. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that in the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to the aforesaid land between the appellant/defendant and the applicant/respondent the learned Executed Magistrate has held that the land was in possession of the appellants. It is urged that applicant/respondent had preferred a revision against order of the Executive Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur which was dismissed and the finding of the Executive Magistrate was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur.
(2.) It is contended that the sale deed purported to be executed by Puti Dasi in favour of the O.P./respondents was not acted upon and the respondent were never in possession of the said land. That this aspect of the matter was not considered by the trial Court and the evidence of the appellants/defendants was brushed aside by the court below without assigning any cogent reason. On the above ground it is urged that the impugned judgment and award is fit to be set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has countered that the order passed under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. does not create any right title or interest over the land. That in fact the respondent had acquired valid title in terms of sale deed. That the appellants had not questioned or ever challenged the sale deed.;