The main legal point established is that claimants seeking compensation for acquired land must establish their right and possession in the disputed land to claim compensation, as per the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the National Highways Act, 1956.

By the Court.–This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) N. 2289 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition giving liberty to the appellants to approach the Civil Court to establish their title, ownership and possession upon the property in the proper way.

2. Case of the appellants is that the ex-landlord, Dulhin Sri Choubeni Kunwar Padama had settled 3.32 acres of land of Kaitha Mauza. recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas, under khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 in favour of Sikhu Mahto through Hukumnama in the year 1924-25. The rent was assessed and paid to the ex-landlord from 1924-25. Further case of the appellant is that after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, rent was assessed in the name of Shikhu Mahto and rent had been paid to the Government of Bihar and after the death of said Shikhu Mahto, the appellants came in possession of land and they were paying rent to the State Government till 1984. The appellants relies upon Annexure 6 to show that they were paying rent till 1984. Further case of the appellant is that one notice was issued on 7.06.2010 for acquisition of land situated in various plots including Plot No. 171 under khata No. 84 (Annexure 4) for construction of Four Lane N.H.-33.

3. According to the appellants, they filed several representations before the 4th respondent for payment of compensation of the land but in spite of number of representations no action had been taken and no compensation was paid to them. Stating that the appellant's representation for payment of compensation was not considered, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 2289 of 2012 seeking direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipts forthwith to the appellants in respect of area 3.32 acres of land under khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 of village Kaitha, District-Ramgarh and also to direct the respondents to pay compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents for construction of National Highway No. 33.

4. Upon consideration of the contentions raised by the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the land in question are shown as Gair Mazarua Khas and as such the appellants' claim for payment of compensation is not sustainable. It is further held that as the appellants have not produced any document to show their possession after 1984. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellants to agitate the cause of action before the competent Court having civil jurisdiction, where such issues relating to title, ownership and possession of the appellants can be decided.

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, Md. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. (L&C) for the State-respondent and learned counsel Ms. Sweety Topno for the National Highways.

7. Laying emphasis upon Annexure-6, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had been paying rent for Plot No. 171 till 1984 and the grant of rent receipt was stopped by the authorities without any valid reason. It is further submitted that the appellants came in possession of Plot No. 171 by way of Hukumnama, which was settled in favour of ancestor of the appellants and they were in possession of the property and after vesting of Zamindari, the appellants' ancestors and thereafter appellants paid rent to the Government and the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as per the notification issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 14.05.2009.

8. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand Md. Shamim Akhtar submitted that the appellants have not produced any rent receipt to show that the land in question was in possession of the appellants. It was submitted that lands mentioned in Annexure 4 are government land and those lands were transfe