RAJENDRA PD Vs. AJIT KR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Chaubey, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Verma, the learned senior counsel for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.89 passed in T.A. Nos. 49/1987/22/1988 by the Additional District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.6.87 passed by Sub Judge, Bhabhua in L.A. Case No. 88/1986 initiated on the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Collector, Rohtas in Land Acquisition Case No. 14T/1984/85.

(2.) It is not in dispute that in L.A. Case No. 14T/1984/85, the notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the respondent for receiving the amount of award for acquisition of an area of 1.14 acres of plot No. 744 of Khata No. 346 Village-Jahanabad, P.S.-Kudra, District-Rohtas. The appellant, however, raised the objection to the entitlement of the respondent to receive the aforesaid amount of award and claimed himself to be entitled to the same. Thereafter, the reference was made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and after the reference the L.A. Case No. 88/1985 was registered before the Court of Sub-Judge, Bhabhua.

(3.) The relevant facts for determination of substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are that an area of 1.14 acre of land recorded in Revisional Survey Plot No. 744 belonged to Yamuna Singh and Chunmun Singh out of whom Yamuna Singh had no issue whereas Chunmun Singh had only one son namely Ram Kalyan Singh and Ram Kalyan Singh had only son Ajeet Kumar Singh who is the sole respondent in this appeal. The case of the appellant, who was the objector-opposite party in L.A. Case No. 88/1985, was that he had purchased the entire 1.14 acre of land by registered sale deed dated 12.11.1970 from Ram Kalyan Singh who executed the sale deed for himself and also on behalf of his minor son (respondent) and as such he was entitled to receive the amount of compensation under the award. The case of the respondent, however, was that in the year 1966 his uncle Yamuna Singh validly adopted him and a registered deed of adoption had also been executed. It was his assertion that there had been partition between Yamuna Singh and Ram Kalyan Singh through compromise decree passed in T.S. No. 174/63 and Yamuna Singh was exclusively allotted Plot No. 744 area 1.14 acre. It was the case of the respondent that after the death of Yamuna Singh, he inherited the land in dispute as son (adopted) of Yamuna Singh and Ram Kalyan Singh had no right, title or interest to transfer the land in dispute to the appellant, by executing the sale deed and on the basis of the said sale deed the appellant did not acquire any right, title or interest in 1.14 acre of land of Plot No. 744 in dispute.