JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 282 of 2002 in a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Admittedly, Ac.0.370 dec. of land appertaining to Hal Plot No 107 under Khata No. 21 of village Jatni was acquired by the Government for construction of Khurda-Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project. Initially the said land belonged to one Fakir Charan Mohanty of village Kudiary P.S. Jatni. Thoreafter, it was transferred to one Halu Sundara who purchased the said land. Rabindra Sundara & Rajendra Sundara were the sons of Antaryami Sundara, the brother of Halu Sundara. Rabindra Sundara & Rejendra Sundara filed an application stating therein that the land was purchased out of joint family property. They being the sons of Antaryami, the brother of Halu Sundara, were entitled to get 50% share from tho compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, 50% share of the said amount should be given to them Halu Sundara, who is the original owner of the land, disputed the claim of Rabindra Sundara & Rajendra Sundara. Therefore, the matter was referred to the civil Court u/s 30 of the Act for a decision regarding the share. During pendency of the reference, Halu Sundara died & his unmarried daughter-Sumati Suhdara appeared in Court on 8.10.2003 by filing an application to substitute her as the legal heir of late Halu Sundara, which was allowed without any objection. She stated in her application that the acquired land exclusively belonged to her father late Halu Sundara. Hence, Antaryami Sundara has no right, title, interest & possession over the said land & she, being the only legal heir of late Halu Sundara, is entitled to get the entire compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 3. During the course of hearing, the evidence adduced by the parties revealed that one Promod Sundara was left out by the aforesaid claimants & also by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, notice was issued to the said Promod Sundara vide Order Dated 29.4.2004 to be added as a party in the proceeding. Thereafter, Promod Sundara appeared on 29.4.2004 & filed an application to add him as a party, which was allowed without any objection. Therefore, notice was issued to the said Promod Sundara vide Order Dated 29.4.2004 to be added as a party in the proceeding. Thereafter, Promod Sundara appeared on 29.4.2004 & filed an application to add him as a party, which was allowed without any objection. In his claim application, Promod Sundara stated that he is the natural son of late Halu Sundara through his first wife & also the brother of Sumati Sundara. After death of his natural mother, he was to his maternal uncle's house only at the age of 6 months. Accordingly, since childhood he was living in his maternal house in village Arisal near Jatni. The Special Land Acquisition Officer during acquisition of the suit land did not give him any notice & other claimants also did not try to bring him on record. He also reiterated that Rabindra Sundara & Rajendra Sundara have no right to claim share over the suit property. However, he being the son of late Halu Sundara, is entitled to get 50% share from the awarded compensation. In support of his claim, he filed two documents & a Matriculation Certificate. The present Appellant Sumati Sundara fiied her objection to the petition filed by Promod Sundara stating therein that Promod Sundara was given on adoption to his maternal uncle who was issueless & in search of a son for adoption. Therefore, late Halu Sundara gave Promod Sundara on adoption by conducting a "Dutta Homo" as per the Hindu rites. After adoption, Promod lost all his rights over the property of late Halu Sundara & he did not come to the house of late Halu Sundara nor was he ever recognized as the son of Halu Sundara. Since, the date of adoption, he continued in the adoptive family & was known as the son of Judhistir Pradhan. 4. On the above dispute, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) formulated three points for determination which are as follows: 1. Whether Sumati Sundara is the only legal heir of late Halu Sundara? 2. Whether the acquired land was exclusively belonging to late Halu Sundara or was belonging to joint ownership of Halu Sundara his brother Antaryami Sundara? 3. 4. On the above dispute, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) formulated three points for determination which are as follows: 1. Whether Sumati Sundara is the only legal heir of late Halu Sundara? 2. Whether the acquired land was exclusively belonging to late Halu Sundara or was belonging to joint ownership of Halu Sundara his brother Antaryami Sundara? 3. Whether Promod Sundara is the natural son of Late Halu Sundara & natural brother of Sumati Sundara or not & whether over such claim Promod Sundara can claim 50% of the awarded compensation money by sharing the same with his sister Sumati? 5. After analyzing the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below came to the following finding that the land in question exclusively belonged to late Halu Sundara. The mother of Sumati Sundara, Nisamani examined as P.W.2 admitted that Promod Sundara is the son of late Halu Surldara through his first wife. In her cross-examination, she clearly stated that Promod Sundara is the son of late Halu Sundara. Thereafter, Promod Sundara was added as a party to the proceeding & Sumati Sundara was also cross-examined as P.W.1 on 22.4.2004 & admitted that Promod Sundara is the son of late Halu Sundara through his first wife & he was living in village Arisol & he performed the Sudhikriya of late Halu Sundara. Promod Sundara who was examined as O.P.W.2 filed documentary evidence, i.e., affidavit evidence, Photo Identity Card & Matriculation Certificate, which were marked as Exts.A, Band C respectively. The Matriculation certificate was issued on 1.5.1979 & the Photo Identity Card was issued on 1.12.2002. During cross-examination of Promod Sundara, Rabindra Sundara & Rajendra Sundara suggested him that he was adopted by Judhistir Pradhan of village Arisol. Therefore, he lost his right over the suit property of late Halu Sundara which was denied. The Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) ignored that cross-examination as the same was beyond the pleading. From the above, document & oral submission, he came to a conclusion that Promod Sundara is the natural brother of Sumati Sundara & entitled to get 50% share from the awarded compensation amount. So far as Point No. 1 was concerned, he recorded a finding that since Promod is the natural son of late Halu Sundara, Sumati Sundara, the legal heir will not receive the entire compensation amount. So far as Point No. 1 was concerned, he recorded a finding that since Promod is the natural son of late Halu Sundara, Sumati Sundara, the legal heir will not receive the entire compensation amount. On the above finding he directed that Promod Sundara being the legal heir of late Halu Sundara, should be entitled to get 50% of the awarded compensation amount which was challenged by the present Appellant before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2002. Later on, said Writ Petition was converted to LAA No. 14 of 2005. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Promod filed two affidavits which are on the record & both the affidavits are contradictory to each other. The Court below did not take into consideration those two affidavits & in the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant, she had taken a plea that Promod Sundara was given on adoption to his maternal uncle who was issueless & in search of a son for adoption. The said fact was also not taken into consideration by the Court below. In support of her plea, Sumati Sundara filed a BPL card & a Voter List to show that the name of Promod Sundara has not been shown as the son of late Halu Sundara nor does his name find place in the Voter List of Hata Bazar, Jatni where the members of late Halu Sundara's family are residing. After adoption, he continued as a member of the adoptive family of Judhistir Pradhan in village Arisol as his son & his name has been mentioned in the Voter List of Chhatabar area of Jatni constituency. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that the documents filed by the Appellant were not taken into consideration by the Court below nor was she allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on 7.10.2004 to dislodge the claim of Prdmod Sundara-Respondent No. 2. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Court below rightly impleaded Promod Sundara as a party when it came to its notice that the natural son of late Halu Sundara was left out. Accordingly, notice was issued to Promod Sundara & he was impleaded to the proceeding as a party. To determine the question, the Court below formulated three issues & decided the proceeding in accordance with law on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 8. Accordingly, notice was issued to Promod Sundara & he was impleaded to the proceeding as a party. To determine the question, the Court below formulated three issues & decided the proceeding in accordance with law on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 8. It is not disputed that the property in question exclusively belonged to late Halu Sundara as the finding of the Court below in that respect has not been challenged by Rabindra Sundara & Rajendra Sundara in the present appeal. In this appeal the challenge is to the finding of the Court below regarding its decision distributing the awarded amount between Promod Sundara & the present Appellant Sumati Sundara, who are the children of late Halu Sundara. The present Appellant challenged the finding of the Court below so far as Promod Sundara is concerned treating him as the son of late Halu Sundara. Her claim is that Promod Sundara is the adopted son of one Judhistir Pradhan, but it was not pleaded by her in the Court below that Promod Sundara is the adopted son of Judhistir Pradhan. Rather, Rabindra & Rajendra did put forth the said plea which has been adopted by the present Appellant here. 9. Law is well settled that the person, who pleads the factum of adoption, has to prove the same. In the present case, the record reveals that the Appellant did not state that Promod Sundara is the adopted son of late Halu Sundara. Rather, she & her mother admitted that Pamod Sundara is the natural son of late Halu through his first wife. However, the Appellant claimed that the documents produced by her were not taken into consideration by the Court below nor was she allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on 7.10.2004 to dislodge the claim of the present Respondent No. 2 Promod Sundara. 10. Therefore, considering the fact that the reference was made u/s 30 of the Act for a decision regarding the share of the parties in the awarded Compensation amount, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) should have considered the pros & cons of the matter before coming to a definite conclusion. 10. Therefore, considering the fact that the reference was made u/s 30 of the Act for a decision regarding the share of the parties in the awarded Compensation amount, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) should have considered the pros & cons of the matter before coming to a definite conclusion. Therefore, for the ends of justice, this Court remands the matter to the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar with a direction to consider the effect of the affidavits on record & allow the Appellant to cross-examine O.P.W.2 to that effect. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.