http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: GALIB BIN AWAZ

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1565            1987 SCR  (2)1229  1987 SCC  (3) 527        JT 1987 (2)   628  1987 SCALE  (1)1262

ACT:     Requisitioning  and  Acquisition of  Immovable  Property Act, 1952: s. 8--Acquisition--Arbitrator appointed to deter- mine  compensation’ Jurisdiction of to ascertain  claimant’s right in property.     A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands  Act, 1950: ss. 2(r), 34, 35, 37, 37A, 40, 99 & 102--Applicability of  to  lands acquired by  Central  Government--Interest  of protected tenant--Determination of.

HEADNOTE:     Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 provides for appointment of  an arbitrator  by the Central Government in a case where  there is no agreement for determining compensation.     Sub-section (4) of s. 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telanga- na Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 stipulates the interest of a protected tenant in the land at sixty  per cent.  The  expression ’protected tenant’ is defined  in  s. 2(r) to mean a person who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of the Act. One of the conditions to be fulfilled by such a person under s. 34(1)(a), sub-cls.  (ii) and  (iii)  is that he should have held the land  as  tenant continuously for a period of six years immediately preceding the  1st day of January, 1948 or for a period of  six  years commencing not earlier than 6th October, 1943 and  completed before  the  commencement of the Act. Section 35  makes  the decision of the Revenue Authorities on the question  conclu- sive.  Section 37 mentions other persons not entitled  under s.  34  to be deemed to be protected  tenants.  Section  37A enables persons holding lands as tenants at the commencement of the Act to be deemed to be protected tenants. Section  99 bars  the  jurisdiction of Civil Courts and s.  102  exempts lands leased, granted, alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government.     Certain lands settled in favour of the appellant by  his grandfather  were  requisitioned  in 1963  by  the  Military Estate Officer, Secunderabad. Respondent claimed rights as a tenant of the said land. 1230 His  claim was settled by sharing of the rent. The  property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

was acquired under the Central Act subsequently in 1970.     The  entry  in the Protected Tenancy  Register  prepared under  s.  37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act in  favour  of  the respondent was cancelled by the Tahsildar in 1970 suspecting it  not  to  be genuine. That order was  challenged  by  the respondent  in a writ petition before the High  Court  which held  that whether the petitioner was a protected tenant  or whether he had any prima facie interest in the suit property were  matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction  of  the arbitrator who was to be appointed under s. 8 of the Central Act.     The  District Revenue Officer in the proceedings  before him held that entry in the Protected Tenancy Register was  a spurious  one  as it was not supported by an  inquiry.  This order was upheld by the High Court in revision filed by  the respondent,     In  its order dated 30th January, 1975 in  tile  special leave petition this Court left it open to the High Court and the arbitrator to decide the question whether the respondent was a protected tenant or not.     The  arbitrator after exhaustively discussing  the  evi- dence  on  record held that the respondent was  a  protected tenant and as such he was entitled to sixty per cent of  the compensation  money payable. In the statutory appeal of  the appellant before the High Court an application filed by  the respondent for adducing additional evidence was allowed  and a  Commissioner appointed. Disposing of the  appeal  against the  aforesaid  order  this Court in its  order  dated  19th August, 1985 reiterated its earlier view that the High Court should determine this issue.     The HIgh Court took the view that the arbitrator was not in  error in deciding the issue in the manner it  did,  that there was surfeit of evidence to conclude that the  respond- ent  was a protected tenant under s. 34 read with s.  37  or under  s. 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act and,  therefore,  he was entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation payable.     In  this Appeal by Special Leave, it was  contended  for the appellant that it was mandatory under s. 99 read with s. 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act for the Revenue Authorities to decide  whether a person was a protected tenant or  not  and the  Revenue  Authorities  having found that he  was  not  a protected  tenant,  it  was not open to  the  arbitrator  to decide  the question of protected tenancy. On behalf of  the respondent it 1231 was  contended that the compensation payable must be  deter- mined  under  the  Central Act and the  arbitrator  was  the authority to decide that question. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:  The challenge to the award is rejected.  The  re- spondent  was a ’protected tenant’ under the Andhra  Pradesh (Telangana  Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1950. He  was,  therefore, entitled to get sixty per cent  of  the compensation amount. [l242D, H; 1243A]     Under  s. 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, which makes  the determination  by  the  Tahsildar to be final,  the  bar  of jurisdiction  is not against the arbitrator appointed  under s.  8  of the Requisitioning and  Acquisition  of  Immovable Property Act, 1952 but against a civil court. In determining the  amount  of compensation payable to a person  under  the Central  Act his interest in the property had to  be  deter- mined. [1242DE]     Atchi Appalareddi and another v. Special Tahsildar  Land Acquisition,  Visakhapatnam Municipality and another,  (1979 Andhra Weekly Reporter, Vol. 1 p. 101), referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

   By  the scheme of the Central Act compensation was  pay- able  to persons who had interest in the land acquired.  Who were those persons had to be decided in accordance with  law and  the evidence. Determination by the revenue  authorities and  non-determination was not conclusive or decisive.  Sec- tion  102  of the Andhra Pradesh Act lays  down  that  after acquisition  of the lands by the Central Government the  Act was  not  to apply in respect of such lands. Section  99  of that Act, therefore, had no application. [124 1 G- 1242B]     In  its  two orders dated 30th January,  1975  and  19th August,  1985 this Court had left it open to the High  Court and to the arbitrator to decide whether the respondent was a protected  tenant or not. What was the interest of  the  re- spondent in the land acquired had to be determined in deter- mining the question of payment of compensation to him and in so  determining the facts and circumstances and  proceedings before  the revenue authorities and entries  and  subsequent deletions had to be taken into consideration by the arbitra- tor. The arbitrator had done so and held that the respondent was  a  protected tenant and as such entitled to  sixty  per cent  of money payable for the acquisition of land.  He  had jurisdiction  to  do so. The High Court  found  overwhelming evidence in support of this view. It discussed 18  documents and concluded (a) 1232 that  because the respondent was a tenant of the  said  land between January 1942 to January 1948 for six years he was  a protected tenant under sub-cl. (ii) of cl.(a) of sub-s.  (1) of s. 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, and (b) that because  he held  the  land from October 1943 to October 1949 he  was  a protected  tenant under sub-cl. (iii) and held that  he  was entitled  to sixty per cent of the compensation.  This  view has to be upheld however unsatisfactory it might appear that a  fruit  plucker gets sixty per cent  of  the  compensation while the owners get only forty per cent. If that is the law let  it be. ]1242G, C; 1239AB; 1242H-1243A; 1239DE;  1240EF; 1243A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2010  of 1986.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 15.4.  1986  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.A.O. Nos. 737 of 1981 275  of 1982 and 69 of 1984.     Shanker  Ghosh,  A.V.  Rangam and T.V.  Ratnam  for  the Appellant.     Ashok  Sen. A. Subba Rao, Qamaruddin,  Mrs,  Qamaruddin, C.S.S. Rao and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave  is from  the  judgment and order of the High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh  dated  15th April, 1986. On or about th  of  April. 1948  Sail  Nawaz Jung, the then ruler  of  Mukkalla  State, South  Yeman in Arabia settled some of the  properties  with which the appeal is concerned by a Registered Tamleeknama in favour  of his son Sultan Awaz and his grand son  Galib  Bin Awaz.  In  1954, there was Wakfnama by the said  Sail  Nawaz Jung.  On or about 23rd of August, 1963 the Military  Estate Officer,  Secunderabad of.Andhra Pradesh requested  for  the requisition  of the property named as "Sail Gulshan" with  a vast extent of land and palaces with roads and surrounded by a compound wail measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas situated in the heart of Hyderabad city near Sarojini Devi Hospital. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

property  in  question was taken possession of on  or  about 12th  of  September, 1963. In this appeal we  are  concerned with the claim for compensation for the said acquisition  by one  Abdul  Khader who was a flower picker. He  had  claimed rights  as  a tenant during the requisition. His  claim  for compensation for requisition was settled by sharing the rent in or about 1969. The appellant is one of the owners of  the property in question deriving their title 1233 and  right  from the said Sail Nawaz Jung. On or  about  3rd February,  1970 the Collector issued notice for  acquisition of the property under section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 being Act 30  of 1952  (hereinafter  called  the Central  Act).  The  Gazette Notification  for the acquisition was issued on 12th  March, 1970.  The controversy in this case relates to the  question whether  Abdul  Khader was ’a protected  tenant’  under  the Andhra  Pradesh  (Telangana Area) Tenancy  and  Agricultural Lands  Act,  1950  being Act No. XXI  of  1950  (hereinafter called the Andhra Pradesh Act). The purpose of the said  Act as the Preamble states was, inter alia, to enable the  land- holders to prevent the excessive sub-division of agricultur- al  holdings  and empower government to  assume  in  certain circumstances  the  management  of  agricultural  lands,  to provide  for the registration of Co-operative Farms  and  to make  further  provision  for  matters  incidental  thereto. Section 2(r) states that the expression ’protected’ means  a person  who  is deemed to be a protected  tenant  under  the provisions of the said Act. Chapter IV of the Andhra Pradesh Act deals with protected tenants and section 34 of the  said Act  provides who is to be considered as a protected  tenant and uses the expression that a person shall, subject to  the provisions  of sub-sections (2) and (3), be deemed to  be  a protected tenant in respect of the land if he has  fulfilled the  conditions  mentioned in clauses (a) and  (b)  of  sub- section  (1) of Section 34 of the said Act. Sub-section  (2) of Section 34 of the said Act also deals with "to be  deemed to  be a protected tenant in respect of any land", for  cer- tain  purposes. Section 35 of the said Act deals with  deci- sion on claims and stipulates by sub-section (1) of  Section 35  of the said Act that if any question arises whether  any person, and if so what person, is deemed under Section 34 to be a protected tenant in respect of any land, the  landhold- er, or any person claiming to be so deemed, may, within  one year  from  the commencement of the Act apply  in  the  pre- scribed form to the Tahsildar for the decision of the  ques- tion and the Tahsildar shall after enquiring into the  claim or  claims in the manner prescribed, declare what person  is entitled to be deemed to be protected tenant or as the  case may  be, that no person is so entitled. Sub-section  (2)  of Section  35 stipulates that a declaration by  the  Tahsildar that  the person is deemed to be a protected tenant  or,  in the  event of an appeal from the Tahsildar’s  decision  such declaration by the Collector on first appeal or by the Board of  Revenue on second appeal, shall be conclusive that  such person is a protected tenant and his rights as such shall be recorded in the Record of Right of where there is no  Record of  Rights  in  such village record as  may  be  prescribed. Section  36 of the said Act deals with the recovery of  pos- session  by protected tenant. Section 37 deals with  persons not entitled 1234 under  section 34 to be deemed in certain  circumstances  as protected  tenants.  Section 38 of the said Act  deals  with right of protected tenant to purchase land. Section 39 deals

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

with  right of protected tenants to exchange lands.  Section 40 of the said Act makes rights of protected tenant  herita- ble. Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the said Act indicates who are the heirs who would be entitled to hold the  tenancy on  the  death of the protected tenant and  on  what  terms. Sub-section (3) of section 40 of the said Act provides  that if a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs all his rights  shall  be so extinguished. The explanation  to  sub- section  (3)  of  section 40 of the said  Act  provides  who should  be ’deemed to be the heirs’ of a  protected  tenant. Subsection (4) of section 40 stipulates that the interest of a  protected tenant in the land held by him as  a  protected tenant shall form sixty per cent.     It  is necessary also to note the provisions of  section 99 of the Act. It is as follows:               "99. Bar of Jurisdiction:- (1) Save as provid-               ed  in  this  Act no Civil  Court  shall  have               jurisdiction  to settle, decide or  deal  with               any question which is by or under this Act re-               quired to be settled, decided or dealt with by               the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the               Board of Revenue or Government.                         (2)  No  order  of  the   Tahsildar,               Tribunal  or  Collector  or of  the  Board  of               Revenue  or  Government made under  this  Act,               shall  be questioned in any Civil or  Criminal               Court.’     Section  102  of the said Act stipulates  that  the  Act shall  not  apply to certain lands and  areas  and  provides inter alia as follows:               "102. Nothing in this Act shall apply--                        (a) to lands leased, granted,  alien-               ated  or acquired in favour of or by the  Cen-               tral  Government  or the State  Government,  a               local authority or a Cooperative Society."   It  is relevant at this stage to refer to  certain  provi- sions  of  the Central Act to consider the  controversy  in- volved  in this appeal. The Central Act was  enacted  giving power for requisitioning and acquisi- 1235 tion of immovable property for Union purposes. Section 3  of the  said Act gave power to requisition immovable  property. Section  4  of the said Act empowers  taking  possession  of requisitioned  property.  Section 5 deals with  rights  over requisitioned  property. Section 6 deals with the  power  of release  from the requisitioning. Section 7  authorises  the Central  Government  where it is of the opinion that  it  is necessary  to do so to acquire requisitioned property.  Sec- tion  8  deals with ’principles and  method  of  determining compensation either for requisitioning or acquisition of the property  and,  inter alia, provides for appointment  of  an arbitrator  in  certain contingencies in case there  was  no agreement for determining compensation. Section 9 deals with the payment of compensation and provides that the amount  of compensation  payable under an award shall, subject  to  any rules made under that Act, be paid by a competent  authority to the person or persons entitled thereto in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the award.  Suspect- ing  that the entry in the Protected Tenancy Register  might not  be genuine, on or about 24th of October, 1970 the  Tah- sildar  passed  an  order cancelling that  entry.  The  main question centres around the right of Abdul Khader,  respond- ent No. 1 herein to the compensation awarded by the arbitra- tor,  it  is therefore, necessary to refer to  the  relevant portion  of the said order which inter alia, stated as  fol-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

lows:                         "By perusal of the Tenancy  Register               of  1958  it is evident that Sri  Mohd.  Abdul               Khader is not a genuine protected tenant.  The               entries of this particular so called tenant is               doubtful. I suspect that somebody has tampered               the register and entered the name of Sri Mohd.               Abdul Khader. Separate enquiry in this connec-               tion is going on in this office to know  under               what  circumstances such entry has  been  made               and copy also issued without knowledge of  the               Tahsildar.                         Hence I suspect the entry and  order               to  cancel the copy of the tenancy  issued  in               favour of Sri Modh. Abdul               Khader.                                                       Sd-               Tahsildar.                                                 Hyderabad               West Taluk. "     This  order  of  cancellation was  challenged  by  Abdul Khadar by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  being W .P. No. 1786 of 197 1 and by  judgment  and order  passed  on  27th August, 197 1,  the  learned  single Judge, Vaidya, J. held, inter alia, as follows: 1236               "Whether  the petitioner (Abdul Khader)  is  a               protected  tenant or whether he has any  prima               facie  interest in the suit property are  mat-               ters entirely within the sole jurisdiction  of               the  arbitrator who has to be appointed  under               Section 8 of the ’Central Act’."     In the appeal of Abdul Khader the proceedings of Revenue Divisional  Officer while questioning entry of the  name  of Abdul  Khader  in the Register is a genuine one or  net  and while  it is stated that it was entered in the  Register  in such suspicious way by giving Serial No. 1/A between  Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of Register being Exhibit A. 106 and Exhibit A. 107,  it ultimately held that Abdul Khader was  a  protected tenant  under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act.  On  or about  19th of April, 1972 the order was passed by the  Dis- trict  Revenue Officer who held that Abdul Khader was not  a protected  tenant. He held further that Khasra Pahani  which is  the basic record of occupancy period after spot  inspec- tions  does  not find the name of Abdul Khader  and  further held  that  all entries except this entry in  the  Protected Tenancy  Register prepared under section 37A of  the  Andhra Pradesh  Act  was supported by an enquiry. It was  in  those circumstances held by him that the entry was a spurious one. In Civil Revision Petition No. 1006 of 1972 which was  filed by  Abdul Khader as against others, Justice  R.  Ramachandra Raju  of  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court on  or  about  19th August,  1974  held that Abdul Khader was  not  a  protected tenant  and  directed deletion of entry made  in  the  Final Record  of  tenancies as a spurious one. The  learned  Judge observed, inter alia, as follows:               "I am told by the counsel for both the parties               that  the lands in question were  already  ac-               quired for military purpose under the Requisi-               tion  and  Acquisition of  Immovable  property               Act, 1952 and that Sri M.S. Sharma, the  Addi-               tional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,  Hydera-               bad  has already been appointed as  Arbitrator               under the Act for determining the compensation               and the persons entitled to it. Not only that,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

             in  the  writ petition filed  by  the  present               petitioner in this Court, it was held that  it               is  not  necessary  to go  into  the  question               whether  the petitioner is a protected  tenant               or whether he has any prima facie interest  in               the  property  because they  are  the  matters               entirely  within the sole jurisdiction of  the               arbitrator  who  has  to  be  appointed  under               Section  8 of the Act. Now, as the  arbitrator               has  already been appointed, he will  go  into               the matter as to whether the               1237               petitioner was a protected tenant of the lands               or  not and if he was the protected tenant  to               what share in the compensation amount he would               be entitled to. Under these circumstances, the               C.R.P. is dismissed with a direction that  the               entry  made in the Final Record  of               Tenancies that the petitioner was the protect-               ed tenant, for the lands in question which  is               spurious  as found by both the  Revenue  Divi-               sional Officer and the District Revenue  Offi-               cer should be deleted."     The matter was brought to this Court by a special  leave application and this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.  10  of 1975 on or about 30th January.  1975  held  that since  the  question  whether the petitioner  in  that  case namely,  Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had  been  left open by the High Court to be decided by the Arbitrator under section  8  of the Central Act, special leave  petition  was rejected  with those observations. Thereafter there  was  an order  appointing  arbitrator on 29th of March,  1975  under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Act. Claim petition was filed by  the appellant before the arbitrator’ Claim petition  was also filed by Abdul Khader claiming 60’% of compensation  as a ’protected tenant’.     There  was  an award by the arbitrator holding  that  as this  Court had left it open to decide whether Abdul  Khader was a protected tenant. Despite the objection exercising the jurisdiction  of the Arbitrator to go into the  question  of protected tenant, the arbitrator held that Abdul Khader  was a  protected tenant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid  award,  the appellant  claiming  as one of the owners  of  the  property filed a statutory appeal to the High Court. In the  meantime Abdul Khader filed an application on or about 21st of  Octo- ber, 1984 for adducing additional evidence to mark  Kaulnama dated  2nd of December,  1950 for the first time  and  Oubu- liatnama  dated 2nd December, 1950 as exhibits  in  deciding the protected tenancy rights. The appellant objected to that application but the High Court on 1st April, 1985  appointed Advocate  Commissioner to record additional evidence. On  or about 22nd of April, 1985 the appellant filed the  objection reserving  the  right  of raising the  jurisdiction  of  the Arbitrator to go into the question whether Abdul Khader  was a protected tenant in the light of the Act 21 of 1950. Three civil appeals were filed before this Court against the order of  the High Court on 15th May, 1985. This Court passed  the order, on 19th August, 1985. The said order is important and reads as follows:- 1238               "Special leave are granted.                         The  appeal  is heard.  Dr.  Chitale               learned  counsel for the appellants  submitted               that  the  High Court should  be  directed  to               consider the issues relating to the  jurisdic-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             tion of the arbitrator appointed and function-               ing  under the Requisitioning and  Acquisition               of  Immovable  Property Act, 195 i  to  decide               whether  a  person is protected tenant  of  an               agricultural  land  or  not in  the  light  of               Sections  99  and 102 of  the  Andhra  Pradesh               (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural               Land  Act,  1950. We have  heard  the  learned               counsel  for  the  respondents  on  the  above               question.  After giving our due  consideration               to  the question we are of the view  that  the               High Court should determine this question. The               High Court shall decide the question of juris-               diction  referred  to above in  light  of  the               submissions to be made by both the parties.                         Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel  for               the  respondents submits that  the  appellants               should  not be permitted to withdraw from  the               authorities concerned more than 40 per cent of               the  total compensation awarded in respect  of               the lands in question pending disposal of  the               appeal  before the High Court. We  agree  with               his submission. We direct that the  appellants               shall  withdraw not more than 40 per  cent  of               the  compensation  pending  disposal  of   the               appeal before the High Court. The remaining 60               per cent shall be disbursed in accordance with               the  directions to be given by the High  Court               after hearing all the parties concerned." The appeals were disposed of accordingly. Other C.M.Ps. were filed  for  clarification of the second part  of  the  order dated  19th  August, 1985 and this Court on  29th  November, 1985  in CMPs. Nos. 4692 to 4694 of 1985 clarified  and  ob- served that there was no need for further clarification.  It was observed that the High Court was at liberty to  consider the claims to be made by both the parties and pass any fresh order  with regard to the disbursement of the remaining  60% of the compensation. The judgment under appeal was passed on 15th  of  April, 1986. This appeal arises out  of  the  said judgment.  In  the judgment under appeal which  is  directed against  the  award made by the  arbitrator  formulated  the following  four issues--(1) what is the value of  the  land; (2) who are entitled to the compensation amount; (3) whether Abdul  Khader is a protected tenant of Sail Gulshan  of  the area 19-02 guntas excluding the 1239 land  of buildings, wells, etc. and (4) what share is to  be apportioned  to successors of Sail Nawaz Jung. It has to  be borne  in mind that in the award, the arbitrator  after  ex- haustively discussing the evidence on record held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such further held  that he was entitled to 60% of the compensation money payable for the acquisition of the land excluding the land of buildings, wells etc.     In this appeal we are concerned with the question wheth- er  the High Court was right in upholding the award  of  the arbitrator  so far as it has held in favour of Abdul  Khader and  his  rights to get 60% of the  compensation.  The  High Court dealt with the value of the land. We are not concerned with  the challenge to this aspect in this appeal. The  High Court further modified a portion of the order in view of the decision  of this Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory  of Chandigarh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1576 on the question of solati- um  and  interest on the amount awarded. The  judgment  also dealt  with  the question as to who were the  successors  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

Nawaz  Jung. We are also not concerned with this  aspect  of the  matter  inasmuch as the same is the subject  matter  of another appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4406 of 1986.     We are concerned in this appeal with the right of  Abdul Khader.  The High Court discussed 18 documents out of  which two are challans and other depositions. Kowlnama executed in favour of Shaik Hussain was not filed. The Kowlnama executed in  favour  of the son, Mohd. Abdul Khader, on  December  3, 1950  was filed and was marked as Exhibit C-1. The  document recited:  "permitted to utilise garden fruits,  flowers  and mango  fruits".  The tenant was permitted  to  raise  flower trees at his own expenses. The High Court took into  consid- eration  the judgment in Suit No. 13(1) of 195 1-52  by  the tenant.  The High Court on consideration of these  documents was  of the view that these documents  showed  unequivocally that  the tenancy was in favour of Shaik Hussain from  1935. After  his  death Mohd. Abdul Khader was recognised  as  the tenant. The land was taken possession of under a  panchanama dated  12th of September, 1963. According to the High  Court the documents discussed in the judgment indicated that Shaik Hussain was a tenant from 1935. After his death on July  18, 1949,  his son Mohd. Abdul Khader became a tenant.  In  this background the Court addressed itself to the question wheth- er  Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not  entitled  to 60% of the compensation. No document was filed to show  that Abdul  Khader was declared by the revenue courts as  a  pro- tected tenant. 1240    The High Court was of the view that there was surfeit  of evidence prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Act that  Shaik Hussain was a tenant of the land.  The  question was  whether  on enforcement of the said Act  Abdul  Khader, respondent  herein, was a protected tenant. The  High  Court thereafter discussed the facts mentioned hereinbefore  about the order of the District Revenue Officer and the orders  of this Court referred to hereinbefore. The High Court  noticed the  position that under the said Andhra Pradesh Act it  was for  the revenue authorities to order whether a tenant is  a protected  tenant under section 34, section 37 ’and  section 37A  of  the said Act. Section 37A was enacted  on  12th  of March,  1956. The High Court was, however, of the view  that it  cannot be said that it was for the  revenue  authorities alone to decide the issue because the arbitrator was ordered to  decide the issue by the High Court on 19th August,  1974 and  by this Court on 30th of January, 1975. The High  Court also  referred  to the directions of this Court  dated  19th August,  1985 mentioned hereinbefore. The High Court was  of the view that the arbitrator was to decide that question and the arbitrator was not in error in deciding the issue in the manner  it did. The Court reiterated that there was  surfeit of evidence to declare that Abdul Khader was a tenant. If he was  a tenant, the High Court observed. he was  a  protected tenant  under section 34 read with section 37 or under  sec- tion  37-A  of  the Andhra Pradesh Act. The  High  Court  on reciting the facts came to the conclusions, inter alia:  (a) that  Abdul Khader because he was a tenant between  January, 1942  to January, 1948 for six years, therefore, was a  pro- tected tenant under sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Act; (b) that Abdul Khader held the land  from October, 1943 to October, 1949, therefore, was  a protected  tenant of Sail Gulshan under sub-clause (iii)  of clause (1) of section 34 of Act 21 of 1950. In these circum- stances, the High Court held that Adbul Khader was  entitled to 60% of the compensation paid.      Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid decision,  the  appellants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

being the successor of the owner of the land in question  is in appeal before us. Shri Shanker Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that under the said Andhra Pradesh  Act it  was mandatory under section 99 read with section 102  of the  said Act in conjunction with the definition of  section 2(r) of the Act for the revenue authorities to decide wheth- er  Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not. There  being no  such finding by the revenue officer, on the  other  hand there  being a finding mat Abdul Khader was not a  protected tenant  by  the revenue authorities it was not open  to  the arbitrator to decide the question of 1241 protected  tenancy. The arbitrator therefore,  exceeded  his jurisdiction and the High Court was in error.     Shri A.K. Sen, on behalf of the respondents on the other hand  contended that the compensation payable in respect  of the requisitioning and acquisition must be determined  under the  Central  Act and the arbitrator was  the  authority  to decide  that question. The question of Abdul Khader’s  right to compensation had to be decided in accordance with law. He had  claimed rights of a protected tenant. He had sought  to establish his rights which must be found within the fourcor- ners  of the Andhra Pradesh Act along with  other  documents because  under section 40(4) of the Andhra Pradesh  Act  the interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as  a protected  tenant  formed 60%. The rights of  the  protected tenants  have  been defined in the Andhra  Pradesh  Act  and relevant provisions of that Act namely, sections 34, 37, 37A and 40 in conjunction with the definition under section 2(r) have to be taken into consideration in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case. The two orders of  this Court as we have mentioned hereinbefore dated 30th of  Janu- ary,  1975 and 19th of August. 1985 reiterated the  position that it was for the arbitrator to decide the question and he should  decide the question in the light of sections 99  and 102  of the Andhra Pradesh Act as set out  hereinbefore.  On behalf  of the appellant it was submitted that there  was  a complete  bar  for any civil court to go into  the  question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such  the arbitrator and the High Court had no jurisdiction to  decide this  question. For this reliance was placed on Section  102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act which lays down that the Act  will not apply to lands leased, granted, alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or the State  Govern- ment  etc.  and  on -Section 99 of the Act  which  bars  the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with any question which is  under the Andhra Pradesh Act required to be settled,  to be  decided  or  dealt with by the  Tahsildar,  Tribunal  or Collector.  According to the appellant inasmuch  as  whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had not to be settled by the  Collector or the Tribunal, the arbitrator and the  High Court were in error in going to that question.     We  are unable to accept this submission. By the  scheme of  the Central Act compensation was payable to persons  who had  interest in the land acquired. Who are the persons  who have  interest in the land had to be decided  in  accordance with the law and the evidence. Determination by the  revenue authorities  and  non-determination  is  not  conclusive  or decisive. It is clear that section 102 of the Andhra 1242 Pradesh Act mentions that after acquisition the Act was  not to  apply  in  respect of certain land.  Therefore,  it  was submitted  by the respondents that section 99 of the  Andhra Pradesh  Act. which made the determination by the  Tahsildar to  be final and debarred other courts from going  into  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

question  did not apply in case of compensation payable.  In the background of the totality of circumstances as  manifest in  the different orders it appeared to the  arbitrator  and the  Court that the entry which was made in favour of  Abdul Khader as the protected tenant was of doubtful validity.  We are  of the opinion that the High Court was not in error  in so  holding. It was the observation of the revenue  authori- ties  that it was spurious. That in any event what  was  the interest of Abdul Khader had to be determined in determining the  question  of payment of compensation to him and  in  so determining the facts and circumstances and the  proceedings before  the revenue authorities and entries  and  subsequent deletions had to be taken into consideration by the arbitra- tor.  The arbitrator has done so. He had jurisdiction to  do so. The High Court has so held. This Court by the two orders referred to hereinbefore had also affirmed this position.     In  that view of the matter we are unable to accept  the challenge to the award. Furthermore, under section 99 of the Andhra  Pradesh Act the bar was not against  the  arbitrator but  against  a civil court. In determining  the  amount  of compensation payable to Abdul Khader under the Central  Act, his  interests  in  the property had to  be  determined.  In another context, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh enunciated the position that it was necessary to determine the interest of the persons claiming compensation. Reference may be  made to the decision in the case of Archi Appalareddi and another v.  Special  Tahsildar,  land   Acquisition,   Visakhapatnam Municipality   and  mother, [1979] Andhra  Weekly  Reporter, Vol.  1 p. 101, where the Court observed in the  context  of the Land Acquisition Act that a tenant was a ’person  inter- ested’  as  defined in clause (b) of section 3 of  the  Land Acquisition Act. He has a right to object to the acquisition and/or the quantum of compensation.     The  Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, as the  case may be, had to ascertain the value of a claimant’s right  in the property acquired and compensate him in that behalf.  We may mention that in the two orders of this Court dated  30th of January, 1975 and 19th of August, 1985 referred to  here- inbefore, this Court had left it open to the High Court  and to the arbitrator to decide whether he is a protected tenant or  not.  the arbitrator has decided that question  and  the High Court found 1243 over-wheiming evidence in support of it. In that view of the matter  we must uphold that decision however  unsatisfactory it might appear that a fruit plucker gets 60% of the compen- sation  while the owners get only If that is the law let  it be.     In  the  aforesaid view of the matter this  appeal  must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. P.S.S.                                                Appeal dismissed. 1244