M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge -II - cum -Land Acquisition Judge, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No.24/2001 -02 in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby he has decided the reference in favour of the respondent holding that the respondent has inherited the land in question and is entitled to receive compensation.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The land in question comprised within Khata Nos. 402, 404 and 409 in village Maharo appertaining to Jamabandi No.28 owned by one Baijo Das in whose name it has been recorded in the Gantzer settlement. The entire land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and award was prepared by the District Land Acquisition officer in favour of the respondent in Land Acquisition Case No. 24/2001 -02. The respondent Barnwas Das sought reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act alleging that he being the adopted son is entitled to the compensation amount. Consequently, the dispute was refereed by the Land Acquisition officer to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the respondent is that Baijo Das had taken a second wife, namely Ratani Pujharin and was the natural mother of the respondent Barnwas Das who was born through her husband Anupa Pujhar. According to the respondent, late Baijo Das executed a registered deed of adoption in the year 1946 and, therefore, on the basis of of the deed of adoption, he became adopted son of Baijo Das and was entitled to get compensation. On the other hand, appellant -first party claimed that recorded tenant Baijo Das had a son Bideshi Das who had also two sons namely Jiyadhar Das and Kartik Das. The appellants claimed themselves to be the sons and heirs of late Jiyadhar Das and Kartik Das. Further case of the appellants is that during the life time of Bideshi Das, Baijo Das converted his religion from Hinduism to Christianities for keeping a concubine namely Ratani Pujharin who had a son -Barnbas Pujahar. The appellants' further case was that Ratani Pujharin being the concubine influenced Baijo Das, the ancestor of the petitioners, and on her influence, he executed a document in the year 1946 alleging that Barnwas Pujahar is his adopted son and is entitled to inherit the suit property. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Land Acquisition Judge framed the following issues for consideration: I) Whether the case is maintainable in the present form? II) Whether the O.P. has exclusively got right, title, interest and possession over the lands in proceeding/ III) Whether the 1st Parties are entitled to receive the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka in the said reference/ IV) To what other relief or reliefs which the either party is entitled?
(3.) WHILE deciding Issue No.(II), the Court recorded a finding that there is no documentary evidence in support of the case of the appellant that Baijo Das had a son Bideshi Das. The Court below relied upon the alleged deed of adoption (Ext. C) and on the basis of that document held that the respondent is entitled to inherit the suit land.;