JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : Since both the appeals as well as the cross-appeal in First Appeal No.224 of 1993 arise out of the common judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 135 of 1988, 147 of 1989 and 161 of 1989, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. L.A. Misc. Case No. 135 of 1988 relates to L.A. Pro¬ceeding No.5 of 1987, L.A. Misc. Case No.147 of 1989 relates to L.A. Proceeding No.4 of 1987 and L.A. Misc. Case No.161 of 1989 relates to L.A. Proceeding No.3 of 1987. In the above noted L.A. proceedings Ac. 1.64 decimals, Ac.0.66 decimals and Ac.5.54 decimals of land belonging to one Mahendra Pothal situated in village Naraharipur, Bangargan and Palasandha were acquired for establishment of Industrial Growth Centres. The Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore after enquiry awarded compensation of Rs.45,182/-, Rs.16,567.80 paise and Rs.1,37,199/- respectively for the aforesaid lands in favour of Guramani Pothal, Gouranga Ch. Pothal and Alhadini Pothal, who are the wife, son and daugh¬ter of late Mahendra Pothal respectively. Ananta Ch. Pothal, who is the appellant in First Appeal No.224 of 1993 and Respondent No.1 in F.A. No.293 of 1993 raised objection claiming inter alia that he is the adopted son of late Mahendra Pothal and is enti¬tled to a share in the compensation amount. One Sunil Kumar Sahu-Respondent No.5 in F.A. No.224/1993 also filed objection claiming therein that his mother late Sadini was a daughter of late Mahen¬dra Pothal and as the heir of Sadini he has a share in the com¬pensation amount. Besides these persons, one Rasika Bag, who is respondent No.2 in F.A. No.293/1993 and Respondent No.4 in F.A. No.224 of 1993 also filed a petition claiming a share in the compensation amount on the ground that out of the acquired land in the above noted L.A. Proceedings Ac.0.30 decimals of land belongs to him and he is entitled to compensation for that land. Resisting the above noted claim of Ananta, Sunil and Rasika; Guramani, Gouranga and Alhadini Pothal filed counter indicating therein that Ananta is never the adopted son of late Mahendra Pothal, Sunil has no share or right in the acquired property and that no part of the acquired land belongs to Rasika Bag. Resisting the above noted claim of Ananta, Sunil and Rasika; Guramani, Gouranga and Alhadini Pothal filed counter indicating therein that Ananta is never the adopted son of late Mahendra Pothal, Sunil has no share or right in the acquired property and that no part of the acquired land belongs to Rasika Bag. Consid¬ering the claims and objection of the parties, learned Subordi¬nate Judge, Balasore to whom the matters were referred u/s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act framed the following four issues and accepted the evidence of the parties. (i) Whether Mahendra Pothal had any first wife and if so, wheth¬er Sadini, mother of O.P. Sunil Kumar Sahu was the daughter of Mahendra Pothal through the latter’s first wife ? (ii) Whether Ananta Charan Pothal is the adopted son of Mahendra Pothal ? (iii) Whether the O.P. Rasik Bag has any interest in the acquired plot No.22 vide L.A. Proceeding No.5/87 and whether he is entitled to any share over the compensation amount awarded therein ? (iv) What are the shares of the award holders and O.Ps in the award amount in the three different L.A., Proceedings ? Rasika Bag did not participate or produce any evidence. Sunil Kumar Sahu also did not adduce any evidence. The main contest was between the present appellant of F.A. No.293 of 1993 on the one hand, and the appellant of F.A. No.224 of 1993 on the other (for the sake of convenience the appellants of F.A. No.293 of 1993 would be referred as “appellant” and Ananta Charan Pot¬hal, appellant of F.A. No.224 of 1993 as “Respondent”). 3. The appellant examined three witnesses including Guram¬ani and produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 8. Ananta Charan Pothal examined himself and two other witnesses and produced some documents which were marked as Ext.A-1 series, B-1 Series and C-1 series. The documents produced by the L.A. Collec¬tor were marked as Ext.A-2 and B-2. 3. The appellant examined three witnesses including Guram¬ani and produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 8. Ananta Charan Pothal examined himself and two other witnesses and produced some documents which were marked as Ext.A-1 series, B-1 Series and C-1 series. The documents produced by the L.A. Collec¬tor were marked as Ext.A-2 and B-2. Considering these evidence learned referral Court by the impugned order held that Ananta Charan Pothal is not the adopted son of late Mahendra Pothal and accordingly, he is not entitled to any share in the compensation amount, Sadini was the daughter of Mahendra Pothal through his first wife and that Sunil Kumar Sahoo and his two sisters, Kunu and Runu are the children and legal heirs of Sadini and are accordingly entitled to 1/4 share in the compensation amount, and that Guramani, Gouranga and Alahadini being the wife, son and daughter of late Mahendra are each entitled to 1/4 share in the compensation amount. He accordingly, passed the award which is under challenge in both the appeals. 4. Mr. N. C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant of F.A. No.293 of 1993 submits that no award or share could have been allotted to Sunil Kumar Sahoo and his sisters as they never prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudi¬cation of their share and reference was never made for apportion¬ment of their share. He further sates that the acquired lands being the ancestral property of Mahendra Pothal, Sadini and in turn her children are entitled to only 1/12th share in the com¬pensation amount. 5. Mr. G. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Sunil Kumar Sahu submits per contra that there was never any plea that the acquired land was the ancestral co-parcenery property of late Mahendra and therefore, late Sadini and in turn her children would get ¼ share in the property. Rely¬ing on a decision reported in a case of (Smt.) Sumitra Panigrahi & others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur & others; (1994) 77 CLT 838, he also submits that even if one of the heirs has not prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for appor¬tionment of the share, yet his/her share can be decided in the reference proceeding, if such person has any interest and share in the acquired property. Learned counsel for Ananta Charan Pothal submits that the conclusion of the learned referral Court that Ananta Charan Pothal is not the adopted son of late Mahendra is against the evidence on record. According to him, learned referred Court did not appreciate the evidence produced by Ananta Ch. Pothal proper¬ly. 6. P.W.3 is the second wife of late Mahendra Pothal. In her evidence she admitted that her husband had a first wife and through that first wife he had one daughter named Sadini and that Sadini was married. She admitted that Sunil Kumar Sahu, (Respond¬ent No.5 in F.A. No.224/93) is the son of that Sadini. She further stated that Sadini had also two daughters, namely, Kunu and Runu. According to her, Sadini pre-deceased her father Mahen¬dra Pothal. Ananta Ch. Pothal, who was opp.party No.1 in the reference proceeding also admitted in his statement that Mahendra Pothal had two wives and that he had a daughter named Sadini through his first wife Kali. He also admitted that Sunil Kumar Sahu is the son of Sadini. When the second wife of late Mahendra Pothal and opp.party No.1-Ananta Ch. Pothal admitted that late Sadini was the daughter of Mahendra Pothal through his first wife and that Sunil Kumar Sahu, Kunu and Runu are the son and daugh¬ters of that Sadini, they are certainly entitled to the share in the compensation amount, which Sadini would have got, had she been alive. 7. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that any person interested may request for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudicating the share of the parties in the compensation amount. Admittedly, in the present case the son and daughters of Sadini did not make the prayer for reference. But once reference was made by the L.A. Collector, Balasore to the Civil Court for apportionment of the shares in the compensation amount, the referral Court was duty bound to decide the shares of the persons in the compensation amount according to their rights. As has been indicated above, Sadini was the daughter of Mahendra Pothal and she has left a son and two daughters as legal heirs. So the children of Sadini are legally entitled to get what ever share was legally due to Sadini. As has been indicated above, Sadini was the daughter of Mahendra Pothal and she has left a son and two daughters as legal heirs. So the children of Sadini are legally entitled to get what ever share was legally due to Sadini. In such situation it was immate¬rial whether the children of Sadini had themselves filed petition for reference of the matter to the Civil Court u/s. 30 of the L.A. Act. This conclusion is supported by the observation of this Court made in (1994) 77 CLT 838. 8. So far as F.A. No.224 of 1993 and its cross-appeal are concerned, the only issue involved is whether Ananta Ch. Pothal is the adopted son of late Mahendra Pothal. Law is settled that the person, who takes the plea of adoption has to prove the adop¬tion. In the present case, the appellant-Ananta Ch. Pothal claimed to be the adopted son of Mahendra Pothal. So the onus was on him to prove this claim by cogent evidence. Ananta Ch. Pothal as O.P.W.3 stated that at the very time of his birth Mahendra Pothal accepted him as his son and on the 21st day of the birth he adopted him as a son in a ceremony.He has not stated what kind of ceremony actually took place; and whether there was any giving and taking ceremony. Since Ananta Ch. Pothal claimed that he was adopted when he was only 21 days of old, it cannot be expected that he would known or remember about the ceremony of adoption. So he could have examined some persons or any of the family members who were present in the adoption ceremony. Though in his evidence Ananta stated that Jachindra Behera, Akshaya Kumar Mishra, Gadadhar Pati, Trinath Behera and many other villagers were present at the adoption ceremony, none of these persons was examined as witness. In fact no one except Ananta Charan Pothal stated about the alleged adoption. Admittedly, no document of adoption is there. Anatna Ch. Pothal relied on the Admission Register of Brahmanigaon U.P. School,l for the period from 1947 to 1957. This document was marked as Ext. A-I. P.W.2, one retired Assistant Teacher of that School proved the entries at serial Nos. 48, 49 & 50 of this Register saying that those entries were made in his hand-writing. Anatna Ch. Pothal relied on the Admission Register of Brahmanigaon U.P. School,l for the period from 1947 to 1957. This document was marked as Ext. A-I. P.W.2, one retired Assistant Teacher of that School proved the entries at serial Nos. 48, 49 & 50 of this Register saying that those entries were made in his hand-writing. Serial No.48 contains an entry about the admission of student Nityananda Pothal; Serial No. 49 is in respect of Ananta Ch. Pothal and serial No.50 is in respect of Gouranga Ch. Pothal. In serial No.49 Khagendranath Pothal has been described as the father of Ananta Ch. Pothal and in addition to that in column No.5 there is a further entry describing Mahen¬dranath Pothal as “Pusya Pita” (adoptive father). Peculiarly this extra entry regarding Pusya Pita is in a different ink and dif¬ferent hand-writing. This was admitted by P.W.2. Learned referral Court after closely examining this entry came to the conclusion that it was made subsequently in a different ink in different hand-writing. In Entry No.49 there was also an entry showing Gajendra Pothal, the paternal uncle of Ananta Ch. Pothal as guardian of Ananta Ch. Pothal. If Late Mahendra Pothal was the adoptive father and was alive, there was no reason for an entry showing Gajendra Pothal as guardian of Ananta Ch. Pothal. The entry in the Admission Register showing Mahendra as the adoptive father of Ananta was therefore, not reliable. The Admission Register and C.L.C. Book of F.M. College, Balasore, Admission Register and S.L.C. Book of Remuna High School were proved by the appellant. In these documents Ananta Ch. Pothal has been de¬scribed as son of Khagendra Pothal. Authenticity of these docu¬ments was never questioned. In fact in the counter-foils of the S.L.C. and C.L.C. Ananta Ch. Pothal himself has signed acknowl¬edgement while taking his S.L.C. & C.L.C. That apart, the origi¬nal service book of Ananta Ch. Pothal was produced and marked as Ext.5. This service book shows that Ananta Ch. Pothal was working as an Assistant Teacher. In this book he has been described as son of Khagendranath Pothal. The petitioner also produced certi¬fied copy of M.S. Khatians, finally published in the year 1969 standing in the name of Ananta Ch. Pothal and his brother Anadi Ch. Pothal. In these documents Exts. 6 & 8 Anadi and Anantha have been described as sons of Khagendranath Pothal. If actually Ananta Ch. The petitioner also produced certi¬fied copy of M.S. Khatians, finally published in the year 1969 standing in the name of Ananta Ch. Pothal and his brother Anadi Ch. Pothal. In these documents Exts. 6 & 8 Anadi and Anantha have been described as sons of Khagendranath Pothal. If actually Ananta Ch. Pothal was adopted by Mahendra Pothal when Ananta was 21 days old, then there was no scope for his description in all the above noted registers and records as the son of Khagendra Pothal. In addition to all these entries, the alleged adoptive mother Guramani Pothal clearly stated on oath that her husband never adopted Ananta Ch. Pothal. She stated that there was no occasion for adopting Ananta as their son, because by the time Ananta was born she was herself pregnant 4 to 5 months and a few months after birth of Ananta, her son Gouranga was born. This statement of Guramani is supported by the entries made in School Admission Register, Ext.A/1, wherein the date of birth of Ananta has been mentioned as 22.1.1942 and that of Gouranga has been shown as 12.6.1942. When, Mahendra had a daughter and his second wife was pregnant and they were expecting a child in a few months, normally they could not have taken a child of another person as adopted son. 9. Ananta Ch. Pothal relied on some documents relating to the grocery shop of Mahendra. These documents show that Ananta paid tax and telephone bills of that shop. He filed some rent receipts standing in the name of Mahendra Pothal and his wife Guramani Dei from his custody. He further relied on some letters written by Gouranga addressing him as brother and his wife Asha¬lata as Bhauja. He also produced one invitation card relating to obsequies ceremony of Mahendra Pothal where Ananta and Gouranga both have been shown as the sons of Mahendra inviting people to attend the obsequies ceremony. Even if all these documents are accepted as genuine, yet they do not raise any conclusion of adoption as Guramani explained in her evidence that Ananta was their nephew and because he became fatherless at a tender age she and her husband financially assisted him for his education and marriage and treated him all along with affection like their own son and in return Ananta was helping Mahendra in their grocery business. In such a background tendering of tax, telephone bills of the grocery shop and keeping the rent receipts of Mahendra and Guramani or extending invitation to the villagers to attend the obsequies ceremony of Mahendra Pothal were natural acts and cannot be considered as documents supporting adoption. The above noted discussion shows that Ananta’s claim is not supported by oral or documentary evidence. On the contrary, there are over¬whelming documentary evidence to show that he was all along recognized as the son of Khagendra Pothal. That being the situa¬tion there was hardly any scope for the referral Court to accept his plea of adoption or to allot him any share in the compensa¬tion amount. 10. So far as the claim of Rasik Bag is concerned, the same was rejected as no evidence was produced to show that he had any interest in the acquired land. This finding is not under chal¬lenge in any of the appeals or cross-appeal. 11. Mr. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant submits that apportionment of ¼th share of the compensation amount in favour of Sunil Kumar Sahu and his sister was not legally just and proper. According to him, the property being ancestral copar¬cenery property, Sadini had only 1/12th share and therefore her son and daughters are entitled to only 1/12th share. There is no pleading or evidence that the acquired land was ancestral copar¬cenery property. On the contrary, it was the case of all the parties that it was the property of Mahendra Nath Pothal. Mahen¬dra Nath Pothal left behind a widow, two daughters and one son. Sadini being one of the daughters had ¼th share in her father’s property. So, her son and daughters would get her ¼th share. Thus, learned referral Court has rightly allotted ¼th share to Sunil Kumar Sahu and his sisters, Kunu and Runu. 12. For the above said reasons, both the appeals and the cross appeal are found to be without any merit and are dismissed on contest. In such circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own cost in the appeals. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.