D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1991 passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in LA Reference Case No. 51/89, whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the reference preferred by the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant has claimed compensation for the lands of plot Nos. 403 and 404 of Mauja Alakdiha, khewat Nos. 2 and 2/2 acquired by BCCL on the ground that the lands in question were registered in the name of his grandfather and father by virtue of registered sale deeds of the years 1933 and 1937. The appellant has denied that his uncle Chandrakant Modak had at any time got the land in question in his share by alleged partition dated 2.1.1950. He further asserted that any sale deed executed by Chandra Kant Modak was in effective and invalid and not binding upon him. In this context said Chandrakant Modak has been examined by the appellant as AW 3. However, the learned Court below, while disposing of the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, dismissed his claim by the impugned order. The main points raised in this memo of appeal are that the learned Court below has failed to consider that the sale deed executed in favour of Surendra Nath Banerjee on 26.7.1961 could not be binding upon him, as AW 3 has admitted that he sold only his share in the property. Therefore, the share of the appellant in these two plots 403 and 404 remained intact by which he is entitled to get compensation. According to this memo of appeal further sale deed executed by different persons in respect of the lands of plot Nos. 403 and 404 are not binding against the appellant. It further mentions that the learned Court below misconstrued the documentary evidence against him by which it was held that in Title Suit No. 131/59, the father of the appellant has claimed recovery of possession over the some land appertaining to plot No. 357 while Title Appeal No. 34/44 of 1962 as well as S.A. No. 904/63 had accepted the fact of partition of properties between the family of the appellant. The appellant has further denied that certified copy of the suit register of Title Suit No. 356/61 preferred against said Chandra Kant Modak for 16 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 404 of village Alakdiha, decided in favour of said Chandra Kant Modak to get the compensation awarded by him exclusively. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside and claim for compensation of the appellant is allowed.
(3.) THE respondent Gupteshwar Tiwari has contested the claim of the appellant on the basis of a sale deed dated 17.3.1982, by which Lilawati Devi and others sold the lands of plot Nos. 403 and 404 in his favour on the basis of sale deeds dated 26.7.1961 and 16.8.1972. It is further asserted that said Chandra Kant Modak has executed the sale deed in favour of one Surendra Kumar Banerjee in the year 1961 after which the same land was transferred to Chhotelal Agrawal in the year 1964. As such the appellant plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit property nor any right to claim compensation.;