Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. This Appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Judgment and decree dated 30.3.1984, passed by Subordinate Judge, Khagaria in Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Case No. 45 of 1975, on a reference under Section 30 of the Act. 2. Admittedly, the valuation of the original proceeding as well as the instant Appeal was Rs. 6292/- only. According to Stamp Report dated 23.11.1984 the Appeal was not maintainable before this Court and it would lie before the District Judge concerned. However, by order dated 22.8.1985 a Bench of this Court directed the question of maintainability of the appeal to be considered at the time of final hearing. The Appeal was, thereafter, admitted on 29.9.1986. The Respondents appeared and the Appeal was taken up for final hearing after thirteen years. 3. It is true that this appeal was not maintainable before this Court but since it was admitted to be heard on 29.9.1986 and, thereafter, remained pending for more than ten years, it is not desirable in the interest of justice to return the memorandum of appeal to be refiled before the District Judge concerned after such a long period. Both the parties also jointly requested that instead of sending this appeal to the court of the District Judge at this stage let it be heard and disposed of on merits by this Court, The lower court records have also been received in this Court. Accordingly, the parties were heard and the appeal is disposed of on merits. 4. Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1971-72 was started in connection with acquisition of land to construct Bandh for National Highway No.31 in village Parmanandpur, Distrist-Khagaria. 31 decimals of land of plot no.50 was also the subject matter of the said acquisition proceeding. A sum of Rs. 6292/- by way of compensation was fixed for the said land and the award was prepared in the names of Ramautar Verma and Chhotelal Verma, both sons of Tulsi Verma of village Hardaschak district-Khagaria. 5. It was not disputed that Jhoti Mandal and Khedan Mandal were full brothers. Khedan Mandal had a son, Bihari Mandal, who left behind five sons, namely, Bhagat Mandal, Jago Mandal, Rameshwar Mandal, Nemo Mandal and Mogal Mandal. 6. Panchanand Verma raised objection claiming his interest in the aforesaid land. 5. It was not disputed that Jhoti Mandal and Khedan Mandal were full brothers. Khedan Mandal had a son, Bihari Mandal, who left behind five sons, namely, Bhagat Mandal, Jago Mandal, Rameshwar Mandal, Nemo Mandal and Mogal Mandal. 6. Panchanand Verma raised objection claiming his interest in the aforesaid land. He claimed to have purchased it by a registered sale deed dated 2.7.1934 from Bhagat Mandal and his four brothers, all sons of Bihari Mandal. He therefore, prayed for corrections in the award and payment of compensation to him. Accordingly, a reference under section 30 of the Act was registered vide Land Acquisition (Misc.) No.45 of 1975. 7. According to the objector, Jhoti Mandal died issueless and his estate devolved on his full brother, Khedan Mandal by survirership, whereas according to awardees he left behind a daughter, who was married with Bhikhari Mandal. The said Bhikhari Mandal had three wives. From the first wife he had one son namely, Gopal Mandal, from the second wife also he had a son, Tufsi Mandal and from the third wife he had two sons, namely, Bhupal Mandal and Jaipal Mandal. The objector Panchanand Verma was son of Bhupal Mandal, whereas the awardees, namely, Ramautar Verma and Chhotelal Verma were sons of Tulsi Mandal. However, Ramautar Verma is dead and his heirs and legal representatives are Respondent nos. 2 to 8 in the instant appeal. 8. According to the awardees Jhoti Mandal had orally gifted the land in question to his daughters son, Tulsi Mandal, father of the awardees. Tufsi Mandal continued in possession of the land in question and after his death the two awardees came in possession thereof. The objector Panchanand Verma never came in physical possession of the said land and his sale deed remained inoperative. 9. It appears that firstly, by a registered Sudbharna deed dated 21.8.1930 the land in question was mortgaged with the objector and thereafter, on 2.7.1934 it was sold to him by the five sons of Bihari Mandal. On the other hand, the awardees claimed to have acquired it by oral gift. In my opinion, unless sale deed in favour of the objector was set aside by the civil court of competent jurisdiction it could not have been ignored and the awardees claim of its acquisition under oral gift cannot supersede it. On the other hand, the awardees claimed to have acquired it by oral gift. In my opinion, unless sale deed in favour of the objector was set aside by the civil court of competent jurisdiction it could not have been ignored and the awardees claim of its acquisition under oral gift cannot supersede it. The awardees did not claim acquisition of title over the land in question by adverse possession. 10. Learned Subordinate Judge erred in holding that Sudbharna deed as well as sate deed, Exts. 1 and 2 respectively remained inoperative and rejected his claim. 11. The question as to whether Jhoti Mandal died issueless or he left behind a daughter was not considered by the court befow. Unless it was found that the objectors contention that Jhoti Mandal died issueless was incorrect, his vendor had absolute right to transfer the (and in question and the sale deed Ext.1 in favour of the objector was genuine and operative. In the presence of the said sale deed Ext.1, Jamabandi created in the names of the awardees in Register II the tenants ledger maintained by the State of Bihar shall not confer any title to them. 12. I have, therefore, no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and allow the claim of the objector-appellant under section 30 of the Act. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed but without costs.