P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Additional district Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1968 thereby allowing the L. A. Misc. Case No. 19 of 1968 filed by respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree passed by the learned L. A. Judge the O. P. No. 1 as appellant has preferred the instant appeal. ( 2 ) THE reference case arose out of an application under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called L. A. Act), 1894 filed by the plaintiff respondent alleging that the petitioners and their co-sharers are entitled to receive compensation in respect of plot No. 2052 of Mouza Duillya known as duilya Garden South Paddy Land within P. S. Sankrail, and for declaration that compensation has been wrongly awarded in favour of the defendant appellant. It was also alleged in the said reference petition that defendant appellant Jiten Chalki had never any right, title and interest in the said plot no. 2052. In the petition of reference, the valuation made by the L. A. Collector was challenged and the petitioners laid claim to other plots covered by the award but at the time of hearing of the reference petition the petitioners abandoned their claim in respect of other plots except plot No. 2052 and their claim for higher valuation. Accordingly, before the learned L. A. Judge the only question that fell for consideration was whether the award made by the L. A. Collector in the name of Jiten Chalki in respect of plot No. 2052 was proper or not. ( 3 ) THE contesting O. P. Jiten Chalki in his written objection took the plea that he took settlement of Gula tenancy in respect of suit plot No. 2052 along with other plots at a produce rent of 91/2 maunds of paddy and that his name was duly recorded in the finally published record-of-rights in a proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter called wbea Act ). The further defence case is that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the judgment of the Revenue Officer and directed that name of Jiten Chalki should be recorded as a tenant under the reference petitioners Kundu Chowdhuries. The further defence case is that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the judgment of the Revenue Officer and directed that name of Jiten Chalki should be recorded as a tenant under the reference petitioners Kundu Chowdhuries. Against the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Kundu Chowdhuries moved the High Court in revision, but the High Court affirmed the order of the appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it was the contention of the defendant appellant that he was the recorded tenant in respect of suit plot No. 2052 and the award made in his name and in the name of his transferee by the L. A. Collector was legal and proper. ( 4 ) THE learned L. A. Judge after hearing the submissions of both parties and considering the evidence and materials on record allowed the misc. case i. e. the reference application filed by the reference petitioners and declared that the reference petitioners and their co-sharers belonging to the group of Bhola Nath kundu Chowdhury to whom the plot No. 2052 was allotted under the final decree for partition passed in the High Court are entitled to receive compensation money in respect of the award made by the L. A. Collector relating to the said plot. The learned L. A. Judge accordingly directed the L. A. Collector to modify the award by deleting name of Jiten Chalki and his transferee and to substitute the name of reference petitioners and their co-sharers and to pay them the compensation amount. ( 5 ) MR. Giri, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant Jiten Chalki took Gula tenancy from the then Zamindars Kundu chowdhries long back and his name was duly recorded and finally published in the record-of-rights. Initially his name was recorded as a bargadar and challenging the said entry Jiten Chalki filed an application under section 44 (2a)of the WBEA Act for correction of the entry and recording his name as a tenant under the Kundu Chowdhuries. Mr. Giri contended that the application under section 44 (2a) was disallowed and accordingly, Jiten Chalki preferred an appeal under the WBEA Act and the appeal was allowed and Jiten's name was directed to be recorded as Korfa tenant under the Kundu Chowdhuries. ( 6 ) MR. Mr. Giri contended that the application under section 44 (2a) was disallowed and accordingly, Jiten Chalki preferred an appeal under the WBEA Act and the appeal was allowed and Jiten's name was directed to be recorded as Korfa tenant under the Kundu Chowdhuries. ( 6 ) MR. Giri further submitted that the Kundu Chowdhuries thereafter preferred a revision before this Court challenging the order of the Appellate tribunal but the said revisional application was dismissed. When the matter was settled in the High Court and the order of the Appellate Tribunal under the WBEA Act was affirmed in this Court, and name of Jiten Chalki was recorded as tenant on the basis of Gula tenancy, the L. A. Collector rightly awarded compensation in the name of Jiten Chalki and his transferee. The reference petitioners had no title and possession over the suit plot No. 2052. The learned, L. A. Judge committed illegality by entering into the question of title in the L. A. reference case. The learned L. A. Judge being the reference court cannot decide title. The order of the learned L. A. Judge was, therefore, bad in law and it should be set aside and the previous order of the L. A. Collector awarding compensation in respect of suit plot No. 2052 in favour of Jiten Chalki and his transferee should be restored. ( 7 ) MR. Naba Kumar Das, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that Jiten Chalki was a 'mali' under the Kundu Chowdhuries. Jiten chalki was possessing suit plot and other plots as the 'mali' of Kundu chowdhuries and he used to deliver share of crops i. e. paddy to the Kundu chowdhuries. The Kundu Chowdhuries did not grant any Gula tenancy or any kind of tenancy including Korfa in favour of Jiten Chalki in respect of suit plot no. 2052 or any other plot. Ext. D is a sale deed dated 18. 2. 66 executed by Jiten chalki in favour of Prankrishna Purkait and in the said deed Jiten Chalki described that he inherited the said property i. e. suit plot No. 2052 from his father. Mr. Das contended that, if in the deed marked Ext. D Jiten Chalki mentioned that he inherited the property from his father, his case of acquiring title over the suit plot, on the basis of Gula tenancy is false and baseless. Mr. Das contended that, if in the deed marked Ext. D Jiten Chalki mentioned that he inherited the property from his father, his case of acquiring title over the suit plot, on the basis of Gula tenancy is false and baseless. Therefore, appellant's contention of taking Gula tenancy from the Kundu chowdhuries in respect of suit plot is not at all believable. The record-of-rights are not documents of title and when a question is raised before a Civil Court relating to title, the Civil Court can decide the title. In the present case, the respondent was able to rebut presumption of correctness of record-of-rights and was able to establish that entry of name of Jiten Chalki in the record-of-rights was erroneous. The L. A. Court is also a Civil Court and while deciding the reference can also decide question of title. The learned L. A. Judge rightly decided that the title of the suit plot No. 2052, rests with the respondent and his co-sharers and they are entitled to get the compensation and the award passed by the L. A. Collector in favour of Jiten Chalki and his transferee was erroneous. There is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed. ( 8 ) WE have duly considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Trial Court i. e. the learned L. A. Judge. Before the learned L. A. Judge on behalf of the reference petitioner two witnesses were examined namely, P. W. 1 Sachindra nath Ghosh who described himself as 'karmachari' i. e. employee under the estate of Kundu Chowdhuries and the other witness is P. W. 2 Bimal Krishna kundu Chowdhury, the plaintiff respondent. The appellant Jiten Chalki examined himself in the Trial Court as 0. P. W. 1. On behalf of the reference petitioners several documents were produced before the learned L. A. Judge which were marked as Exts. 1 to 14 series. For the O. P. documents which were admitted in evidence were marked as Exts. The appellant Jiten Chalki examined himself in the Trial Court as 0. P. W. 1. On behalf of the reference petitioners several documents were produced before the learned L. A. Judge which were marked as Exts. 1 to 14 series. For the O. P. documents which were admitted in evidence were marked as Exts. A to I. ( 9 ) AFTER carefully perusing the oral and documentary evidence we find that in the R. S. record of rights which was finally published after a prolonged proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the W. B. E. A. Act, name of the appellant jiten Chalki was recorded in Khatian No. 1740 as Korfa tenant under Kundu chowdhuries. It is evident that initially Jiten Chalki filed a petition under section 44 (1) of the W. B. E. A. Act (Ext. 1) for recording his tenancy in respect of suit plot along with other plots. The Revenue Officer rejected his prayer and recorded his name only as a bargadar under the Kundu Chowdhuries. Being aggrieved by the said order Jiten Chalki filed an application under section 44 (2a) of the W. B. E. A. Act (Ext. 6) for correction of the entry in the record-of-rights and for recording his name as a tenant. The application filed by Jiten chalki for correction of entry in the record-of-rights was disallowed, and thereafter, he filed an appeal being E. A. A. No. 80 of 1961 before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and name of Jiten Chalki was directed to be recorded as Korfa tenant under the Kundu Chowdhuries. ( 10 ) IT is evident that the Kundu Chowdhuries thereafter moved this Court in civil revisional jurisdiction challenging the judgment and order of the L. A. Tribunal, but this Court dismissed the said revisional application and affirmed the order of the L. A. Tribunal passed in E. A. A. No. 80 of 1961. We are unable to agree with the views of Mr. Giri that when this Court in the civil revisional application affirmed the order of the L. A. Tribunal, the title of Jiten Chalki was established and learned L. A. Judge was not empowered to enter into question of title. We are unable to agree with the views of Mr. Giri that when this Court in the civil revisional application affirmed the order of the L. A. Tribunal, the title of Jiten Chalki was established and learned L. A. Judge was not empowered to enter into question of title. There are catena of decisions where it was laid down that order of appellate authority passed in a proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the w. B. E. A. Act is not conclusive relating to question of title and, whenever any question is raised before Civil Court relating to question of title over any property or plot of land, the Civil Court has the authority to decide the question of title and the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the proceeding under section 44 (2a)of the W. B. E. A. Act cannot be binding on the Civil Court. Civil Court has independent power of making investigation relating to question of title and can decide the title relating to the disputed property. ( 11 ) IN several decisions namely, Ram Barai Shaw vs. Bibhabati Basak and ors. , reported in 1975 (1) CLJ 382, Lalit Mohan Sarkar and Ors. vs. State and Ors. , reported in 1975 (1) CLJ 448, Ramesh Chandra Sood vs. Assistant Settlement officer, Sub-Division Ranaghat, District Nadia and Ors. , reported in 76 CWN 149 and Braja Mohan Sarkar and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 79 CWN 1035, it was held that the Revenue Officer in preparing the record of rights does not decide question of title when there is a dispute regarding ownership of the land but decides the dispute on the basis of possession only and that too in summary manner. It is thus clear that while preparing record-of-rights relating to entry of name of any person, the Revenue Officer is not the proper authority to decide question of title and he decides only in a summary manner on he basis for possession. It is well-settled law that records-of-rights are not documents of title and record-of-rights prima facie regarded as documents of possession and it is also equally settled that entries in record-of-rights are rebuttable by cogent evidence. In Satish Chandra Matiy vs. Saila bala Dassi and Ors. It is well-settled law that records-of-rights are not documents of title and record-of-rights prima facie regarded as documents of possession and it is also equally settled that entries in record-of-rights are rebuttable by cogent evidence. In Satish Chandra Matiy vs. Saila bala Dassi and Ors. , reported in AIR 1978 Cal 499 , this Court held that correctness of record-of-rights can be challenged in Civil Court and, if substantial question of title is involved or the record-of-rights are prima facie wrong and erroneous Civil Court can investigate the question of title and section 57b of the W. B. E. A. Act does not affect the decree passed by Civil Court. ( 12 ) IN Ram Barai Shaw vs. Bibhabati Basak (supra) it was held by this court that an entry in the record-of-rights is not a proof of title nor the record-of-rights is a document of title. It only raises a presumption as to the correctness of the entries in such records. ( 13 ) IN Jatindra Nath Malik vs. Sushilendranath Palit, reported in 69 CWN 210, it was held by this Court that the bar under section 46 of the W. B. E. A. Act is a bar applicable only for the period up to the final publication of the record-of-rights, but after such final publication a suit is maintainable challenging the correctness of the entries in the record-of-rights finally published. ( 14 ) THE finally published record-of-rights is presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved and when the entry relating to record-of-rights is under investigation by Civil Court and the parties have adduced evidence on the point of controversy concerning correctness of entries of record-of-rights, the entry in record-of-rights loses its weight when the evidence discloses no foundation for such entry. In the present matter before us in the Trial Court appellant Jiten chalki in his evidence could not produce any document to prove his case of taking Gula tenancy. His evidence reveals that he could not give date, month and year of taking Gula settlement and he even could not give the Bengali calender year when he allegedly took the settlement. He stated that he took settlement in Gula from the shebait of debutter estate but in evidence it transpired that the suit plot No. 2052 was not at all a debutter property. He stated that he took settlement in Gula from the shebait of debutter estate but in evidence it transpired that the suit plot No. 2052 was not at all a debutter property. O. P. W. 1 Jiten Chalki also stated that he has no witness to prove Gula settlement in his favour. He stated that he delivered 91/2 maunds of produce to Jatinbabu and Bijan, but stated that he has no receipt to prove delivery of produce of land. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in their evidence clearly stated that suit plot No. 2052 was the secular property of Kundu Chowdhuries and it was never settled in gula tenancy in favour of Jiten Chalki. Evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 clearly establishes that Jiten Chaiki was merely a 'mali' in the garden of Kundu chowdhuries. P. W. 1, the employee of the Zamindar Kundu Chowdhuries in his evidence stated that Kundu Chowdhuries had two separate estates (1)secular, and (2) debutter estate, and plots 2048 and 2052 were part of their secular estate. There was no proper cross-examination of P. W. 1 on this respect. The evidence of O. P. W. 1 that he took settlement of Gula tenancy from shebait of debutter estate totally goes against appellant's case and clearly establishes that entry of name of Jiten Chalki in the record-of-rights as Korfa tenant under kundu Chowdhuries in respect of suit plot No. 2052 was erroneous and without any foundation. ( 15 ) APPELLANT's case was further demolished from Ext. D, the sale deed executed by him in favour of Prankrishna wherein he described that it was his ancestral property which is inherited from his father. Ext. D totally destroys appellant's case that he took settlement of suit plot No. 2052 in Gula tenancy from the Kundu Chowdhuries. The learned Trial Court rightly held that Jiten chalki made different case at different times and made conflicting and inconsistent statements. ( 16 ) IT appears that there was a partition suit between the Kundu chowdhuries and this Court in the partition suit allotted Lot No. C to the branch of Bhola Nath Kundu Chowdhury. Evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 clearly reveals that Bhola Nath Kundu Chowdhury left one son Gurudas and Gurudas left behind two sons Sarat and Bharat. Evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 clearly reveals that Bhola Nath Kundu Chowdhury left one son Gurudas and Gurudas left behind two sons Sarat and Bharat. The final decree of partition suit reveals that suit plot No. 2052 was within Lot No. C which was allotted to the branch of Bhola Nath. It further appears that in the partition suit one S. Ghosh, Bar-at-Law was appointed as receiver but he had no authority to make any settlement or lease exceeding 3 years without leave of the Court. It is further evident that when the alleged settlement was taken by Jiten Chalki this Mr. Ghosh was acting as receiver and he could not make any settlement in favour of appellant. From Ext. 14 series it appears that after passing of the final decree for partition, the co-sharers of the branch of Bhola Nath took delivery of possession of the properties allotted to them through Lot C in terms of the settlement. The above discussion makes it clear that the reference petitioner was able to discharge the burden of proof and was able to prove that the entry of name of Jiten Chalki in the record-of-rights in respect of suit plot No. 2052 was without any basis and foundation. ( 17 ) THE L. A. Judge is also a Civil Court and in view of section 3 (d) of the l. A. Act, "court" means a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the Appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under the Act. When a reference application is made to the L. A. Judge and in the said reference application question of title arises, the L. A. Judge being the Court of Reference acting as a Civil Court, can decide the question of title arising between rival claimants and can come to the conclusion as to who are the proper persons who are entitled to compensation awarded by the L. A. Collector in respect of any land or plot or property acquired by L. A. Collector. The Reference Court or the l. A. Judge being a Civil Court can definitely enter into question of title. ( 18 ) IN view of the discussion made above we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned L. A. Judge. The Reference Court or the l. A. Judge being a Civil Court can definitely enter into question of title. ( 18 ) IN view of the discussion made above we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned L. A. Judge. The l. A. Judge on consideration of evidence and materials on record arrived at a correct decision both on factual aspects and legal principles and we find no ground at all to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. ( 19 ) IN the result, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal being devoid of any merit accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, we do not pass any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.