The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove right, title, and possession over acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the relevance of Banatannama in determining ownership.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Both these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II- cum- L.A. Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No.10 of 1999 dated 27.09.2012 by which the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II-cum-L.A. Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the reference petition filed by the applicants and opposite party nos.2 to 7 who are interveners without costs and further went on to observe that the applicants and interveners have no right, title and possession over the khata no.407, plot nos. 2093, 2129, 2130, 1878 and 1880.

3. The applicants of L.A. Reference Case No.10 of 1999 have filed F.A. No.29 of 2013 while the interveners-opposite party nos.2 to 7 of L.A. Reference Case No.10 of 1999 have filed F.A. No.217 of 2012. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment. Hence, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the State Government through the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad acquired the land situated over khata no.407, plot no. 2093 area 5 decimals, plot no.2129 area 78 decimals, plot no.2130, area 31 decimals, plot no.1878 area 12 decimals and plot no.1880 area 70 decimals being in total area of 1 acre and 96 decimals at Mouza Katras, Mouza No.239, Dist. Dhanbad. L.A. Proceeding bearing case no.19/94-95, vide project case no.3/96-97 culminated in award no.1 and being made for the compensation award of Rs.1,88,650/- in favour of respondent no.1 in both these appeals who was the opposite party no.1 before the learned court below. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, the original applicant filed reference petition before the District Land Acquisition Officer Dhanbad under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10.10.1998 stating therein that the acquired land was originally in the name of Samsher Mouth son of Pir Box in the last cadastral survey and after death of Samsher Mouth, the acquired land came in possession of all the four sons of Samsher Mouth. After the death of the four sons of Samsher Mouth, the land came in possession of the applicants along with opposite party no.1- Md. Illiylas but the award was prepared only in the name of opposite party no.1- Md. Illiyas for a compensation of Rs.1,88,650/- and paid to him. The applicants further stated in the reference petition that the applicant no.1 had 1/3rd share, applicant nos.2 to 9 had 1/3rd share and the opposite party no.1 along with his brothers had also 1/3rd share. The applicants objected before the Land Acquisition Officer during the land acquisition proceeding. The applicants stated that Banatannama was never acted upon and no partition has ever taken place between the descendants of Samsher Mouth. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad referred the reference petition to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-II-cum- L.A. Judge. After receiving of the reference petition, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1- Md. Illiyas filed show cause before the learned court below challenging the maintainability on the reference petition on various technical grounds. The opposite party no.1 also pleaded that reference petition is barred by limitation and the applicants have no locus standi to file the petition. The opposite party no.1 denied the relationship with the applicants. The opposite party no.1 denied that the applicants were ever in possession of the acquired land. The opposite party nos.2 to 7 also appeared and filed their show cause claiming that they had right, title and possession over the acquired land and supported the contention of the applicants. They further pleaded that the Banatannama was never acted upon at any point of time and no partition has ever taken place between the sons of recorded raiyats.

5. In support of their case, the applicants examined altogether five witnesses.

6. A.W.1- Md. Samsuddin has supported the averm