In the absence of a Hukumnama, the court may consider other evidence, such as rent receipts, Zamindari returns, and Jamabandi, to determine the title and possession of a disputed land.

K.B. Sinha. J.

This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT : and decree of the 1st Addl. District Judge, (Land Acquisition Judge) Gaya by which it has been held that respondent-applicant has got title and possession over the land in dispute and thus he alone is entitled to receive the amount of compensation calculated in the award given by the Collector to the exclusion of the appellant-opposite party.

2. The disputed land covers an area of three decimals out of the total area of six decimals of land of plot no. 3166 appertaining to khata no. 1263 situated in village Kako P.S. Jehanabad, Gaya. A vast track of land, including the part of the disputed plot, was acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of Nataul Branch Canal under Uderasthan irrigation scheme. A joint award was prepared in the name of the appellant-opposite party and the respondent-applicant by the Land Acquisition Officer, Collector under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') for a sum of Rs. 226.84 only.

3. The appellant-opposite party claim title and possession over the disputed land on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of his father Dasain Gope. His further claim is that rent receipts were issued by the ex-landlord in the name of his father and the Zamindari return was also submitted showing his father as the Raiyat (tenant) of the disputed land. After settlement by the landlord, his family has been in peaceful cultivating possession of the land and so only he is entitled to receive the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. A demarcation case was filed by the respondent-applicant in connection with the disputed plot in which he did not succeed, and a direction was given to him to file suit in the Civil Court for adjudication of his title and possession but he did not choose to get it decided by a competent Civil Court.

4. The case of the respondent-applicant is that the said plot was settled with him by the ex-landlord and in token of which a Hukumnama was granted to him. After settlement, he came in possession of the land and rent receipts have been issued to him by the ex-land, lord as well as by the State of Bihar upto the year 1969-70. His further case is that the appellant-opposite party has neither title nor any concern with the said land. In the revisional survey, the disputed plot was recorded in the name of the respondent-applicant without any objection from the appellant-opposite party. As the award was prepared jointly in the name of the parties, the respondent-applicant filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and the later in his turn made reference to the District Judge Gaya under section 30 of the Act.

5. After receipt of the reference, Land Acquisition suit no. 58 of 1970 was registered in the court of District Judge, Gaya. It was eventually transferred to the court of the Ist Additional District Judge, who was vested with the power of the Land Acquisition Judge, Gaya where it was numbered as T.S. no. 2 of 1972 and was finally heard and decided in favour of the respondent and hence this appeal.

6. Both the parties have claimed title and possession over the land in dispute on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord. From the ORDER :of reference, made by the Collector, it is clear that Ramapati Yadav, the respondent raised objection disputing the right, title and possession of Jadunandan Yadav, the appellant-opposite party. No rejoinder appears to have been filed by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer. Both the parties produced documentary as well as oral evidence in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge, Gaya.

7. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the JUDGMENT : mainly on two grounds. His first contention was that the impugned JUDGMENT : was based on misrepresentation of evidence, which caused great prejudice to the appellant. It was also contended that the court below failed