Daughters have equal rights as sons in inherited property under Hindu law, affirming their status as coparceners regardless of their father's death prior to the 2005 amendment.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.38 of 2015 on the ground that the parties to the said case being Class-1 heirs of the recorded tenant Dubraj Patel, each of them is entitled to get 1/6^th share out of the compensation awarded for acquisition of land and the referral Court committed mistake by holding that daughters of Dubraj Patel namely, Raimati, Latabati and Sukanti are entitled to get their share out of the compensation amount notionally and not equally like Khyamasila and Tirthabasi, both sons of Dubraj Patel (present Respondent No.1 & 2).

2. The factual matrix of the case, as pleaded in the Appeal, is that as per the declaration of the Government of Orissa vide No.LA (c) 3052(R&DM) dated 31.01.2014, the land measuring area Ac.0.23 decimals under Hal Khata No.86 of Mouza Ramanda was acquired by the Government for construction of H/L Bridge over river IB. After acquisition of the aforesaid land, the L.A.O. ascertained owner in possession of the acquired land and settled the compensation amount of Rs.5,49,976/- in favour of the present Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 & 2. However, before disbursement of the compensation amount in favour of the awardees, the dispute arose between the Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Thereafter, the present Appellants filed an application before the L.A.O., Sundargarh claiming their 1/6^th share each over the compensation amount, for which, the L.A.O., instead of releasing the compensation amount in favour of the awardees, referred the matter to the Court below under Section 30 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 for apportionment and disbursal of the awarded amount in accordance with law. After referring the case to the Court below, the L.A.O deposited the compensation amount in the treasury vide Challan No.35 dated 24.06.2015. To show their relationship with the Respondents, the Appellants (Petitioners before the Court below) filed their show cause indicating their family genealogy, which is reproduced below:

Dubraj Patel was the father of the Petitioners namely, Raimati, Latabati and Sukanti and maternal grand father of Petitioners Saibani, Himadri and Samira. Dubraj Patel died in the year 1995 leaving behind his widow Ramabhabati, two sons namely, Khyamasila & Tirthabasi and four daughters namely Bilasini, Raimati, Latabati and Sukanti. After the death of Dubraj and his widow Rambhabati, all the properties of Dubraj was succeeded by his sons and daughters as his Class-I heirs.

3. Further case of the Appellants is that, Dubraj Patel has got raiyati land at mouza-Remanda, which stands recorded exclusively in his name under Khata No.86 of Mouza Remanda and after his death, the said properties were devolved upon his sons and daughters, but in the meanwhile, one of the daughters of Dubraj namely Bilasini died and in her place, her son and daughter have succeeded her share land and they are the Petitioners named Samir, Himadri and Saibani. According to the Appellants, there has been no partition of the land under Khata No.86 among the sons and daughters of Dubraj. Now the said land under Khta No.86 has been acquired by the Government and compensation amount has been settled in the names of the awardees including the present Petitioners, but they being the Class-I heirs of the recorded tenant Dubraj Patel, each of them is entitled to get 1/6^th share out of it. Hence, the Appellants prayed to release the compensation amount in their favour allotting 1/6^th share each.

4. It is further case of the Appellants that after going through the oral as well as documentary evidences on re