The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving adoption under customary law and the entitlement of appointed heirs under customary law and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in cases of inheritance and land acquisition.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present appeal by the appellant-petitioner arises of the judgment dated 06.11.1990 passed by the Reference Court, Bhiwani, whereby the petition under 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 1894 Act') was dismissed.

2. Resultantly, the claim of the appellant-petitioner for compensation to the extent of 6/16th share (3/8th) for the land measuring 79 kanals 7 marlas belonging to Bhagha @ Bagh Singh son of Jhabbu, falling in the revenue estate of village Lohar Bhiwani, Hadbast No.22, Tehsil & District Bhiwani and which had been acquired vide Award No.17 dated 31.03.1988. Compensation of same was claimed on account of the fact that Bhagha @ Bagh Singh brother of the petitioner had been appointed heir of the property of Jaimal was denied.

3. The Reference Court rejected the said claim on the ground that Jaimal never adopted Bhagha @ Bagh Singh. There was no evidence to show that there was any adoption ceremony and only the allegation was that Gur had been distributed. It was noticed that Bhagha @ Bagh Singh deceased was residing with Rohtan the present appellant and their Khata was joint and they had a common ration card (Ex.PA). Reliance was placed upon para 55 of the Digest of the Customary Law to reject the claim of being appointed heir on the ground that he would not succeed collectively to the appointer's relatives. The judgment passed in 'Kartar Singh Vs. Surjan Singh' 1975 Current Law Journal was discussed that there were observations that an appointed heir could not succeed to the collaterals of the persons who appointed him as his heir, whereas adopted son would succeed to the collaterals of the adoptive father and, thus, was distinguished.

4. A finding was recorded since the adoption of Bhagha @ Bagh Singh by Jaimal was not proved and that he was an appointed heir and thus he succeeded to the property of Jaimal and according to that he was shown as an adopted son of Jaimal in the revenue records. Bhagha @ Bagh Singh having died unmarried as well as issueless, the property which Bhagha @ Bagh Singh inherited from Jaimal was not to go to his brother, but it would go to the collaterals of Jaimal, who were the respondents before the Reference Court and are the respondents herein and they being the legal representatives namely children of Nar Singh who was the uncle of Jaimal.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy as such the pedigree of the parties is to be taken into consideration, which is as under:-

6. Thus, the questions which would arise are that Bhagha @ Bagh Singh who himself was issueless, having been appointed as the heir of Jaimal and who had died in the year 1943 would inherit the property absolutely or whether it would revert to the collaterals of Jaimal on the death of Bhagha @ Bagh Singh on 11.09.1982. Secondly whether the appellant Rohtan would, thus, be entitled for preferential right of succession under Section 8 (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 1956 Act') being the brother and a Class-II heir of Bhagha the appointed heir under Custom.

7. A perusal of petition under Section 30 of the 1894 Act filed by the appellant would go on to show that the land was acquired vide Award dated 31.03.1988 for the public purpose for development of Sector 23 in Bhiwani by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The payment of compensation being in dispute the petition under Section 30 was filed. The amount of 2,97,901/- had been deposited with the Civil Court by the Land Acquisition Collector.

8. The challenge had been raised that respondent No.1 namely Mangal had got sanctioned Mutation No.8800 in respect of 6/16th share of land in dispute in their favour, which was illegal, null and void. The respondents had no right to take the compensation in respect to the disputed share. The claim was made on account of the fact that Bhagha @ Bagh Singh was the real brother of the petitioner, who was the preferential heir. The family members were Rajput by caste and we