Holding

The arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the protected‑tenant status for compensation purposes, and Abdul Khader was a protected tenant entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation.

Summary

The case concerned lands originally settled by the appellant’s grandfather that were requisitioned by the military in 1963 and later acquired by the Central Government in 1970. Abdul Khader, a flower‑picker, claimed to be a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and sought 60% of the compensation payable under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The question was whether the arbitrator appointed under the Central Act could determine Khader’s status as a protected tenant, or whether that determination was exclusively the domain of the revenue authorities under sections 99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The Supreme Court held that the bar in section 99 applied only to civil courts, not to the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator was entitled to decide the protected‑tenancy issue for the purpose of fixing compensation. Consequently, the arbitrator’s award that Khader was a protected tenant entitled to 60% of the compensation was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the arbitrator appointed under s.8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 can determine the status of a claimant as a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Whether sections 99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act bar the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, making the determination of protected tenancy exclusive to revenue authorities.
Whether Abdul Khader qualifies as a protected tenant and is therefore entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950s. 102, s. 2(r), s. 34, s. 35, s. 37, s. 37A, s. 40, s. 99
Land Acquisition Acts. 3(b)
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

requisition and acquisitioncompensationprotected tenantarbitrator jurisdictionland acquisitioncivil appealspecial leave petition

Judgment

GAUB BIN AW AZ A
v.
MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.
\
APRIL 28, 1987

[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.} B

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952:
l's. 8-Acquisition-Arbitrator appointed to determine compensation-
Jurisdiction of to ascertain claimant's right in property. ·

A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: c
ss. 2(r), 34, 35, 37, 37A, 40, 99 & 102-Applicability of to lands acquired
by Central Government-Interest of protected tenant-Determination
~·
Section S(l)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immov-
able Property Act, 1952 provides for appointment of an arbitrator by D
the Central Government in a case where there is no agreement for
determining compensation.

Sub-section (4) of s. 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 stipulates the Interest of a
..+protected tenant in the land at sixty per cent. The expression 'protected E
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-els. (ii) and (iii) is
that he should have held the land as tenant continuously for a period of
.a.. 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 F
-tompleted before the commencement of the Act. Section 35 makes the
decision of the Revenue Authorities on the question conclush:e. -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 ands. 102 exempts lands G
leased, granted, alienated or acquired In favour of or by the Central
\.Government.

Certain lands settled In favour of the appellant by his grand-
father were requisitioned in 1963 by the Military Estate Officer, H
Secunderabad. Respondent claimed. rights as a tenant of the said land.
1229
1230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A His claim was settled lly sharing of the rent. The property was acquired
under the Central Act subsequently in 1970. 'y
/
The entry in the Protected Tenancy Register prepared under s.
37 A of the Andbra Pradesh Act in favour of the respondent was cancel-
led by the Tahsildar in 1970 suspecting it not to be genuine. That order
B was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the High
Court which held that whether the petitioner wns a protected tenant or ;
whether he had any prima facie interest i.u the suit property were mat-
ters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the arbitrator \VllU was to be
appointed under s. 8 of the Central Act. '"\

c The District Revenue Officer in the proceedings befot~ him held
that entry in the Protected Tenancy Register was ii spurious one as it
was not supported by au inquiry. This order WilM upheld by the High;:t
Court in revision filed by the respondent.

In its order dated 30th January, 1975 in the special leave petition
.0 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 evidence on re-
cord held that the respondent was a protected tenant and as such he was -f-
entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation money payable. Jn the
E 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.
F
The High Court took the view that the arbitrator was uot in error
in deciding the issue in the manner it did, that there was surfeit of
evidence to conclude that the respondent was a protected tenant under
· s. 34 reed 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.
G
In this Appeal by Special Leave, it was contended for the appel-
lant 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
H decide the question of protected tenanc.v. On behalf of the respondent it
AWAZ v. KHADER U31

was contended that the compensation payable must be determined
A
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 respondent B
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. l1242D, H; 1243A]

- I' Under s. 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, which makes the determi-
nation by the Tahsildar to be final, the bar of jurisdiction is not against
c
the arbitrator appointed under s. 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisi-
tion 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 determined. (1242DE]

Aichi Appalareddi and another v. Special Tahsildar Land D
Acquisition, Visakhapatnam Municipality and another, (1979 Andhra
Weekly Reporter, Vol. 1 p. 101), referred to.

By the· scheme of the Central Act compensation was payable to
-.+- persons who had interest in the land acquired. Who were those persons
had to be decided in accordance with law and the evidence. Determine- E
~ lion by the revenue authorities and non-determination was not conclu-
sive or decisive. Section 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,
bad no application. [1241G-1242B]
F
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 n~t. What was
the Interest of the respondent in the land acquired bad to be determined
in determining the question of payment of compensation to him and in so
determining the facts and circumstances and proceedings before the G
revenue authorities and entries and subsequent deletions had to be
taken into consideration by the arbitrator. The arbitrator bad 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) H
1232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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-!243A;
1239DE; 1240EF; 1243A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2010"'1 -
C 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 6.,.
of 1984.
Shanker Ghosh, A.V. Rangam and T.V. Ratnam for the Appel-
D !ant. . '
Ashok Seo, 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
+
E 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 10th of April, 1948 Saif 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 Re- ""
--
gistered Tamleeknama in favour of his son Sultan Awaz and his grand
F son Galib Bin Awaz. In 1954, there was Wakfnama by the said Saif
Nawaz Jung. On or about 23rd of August, 1963 the Military Estate "f
Officer, Secunderabad of Andhra Pradesh requested for the requisi-
tion of the property named as "Saif Gulshan" with a vast extent of
land and palaces with roads and surrounded by ·a compound wall
measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas situated in the heart of Hyderabad
G city near Sarojini Devi Hospital. The property in question was taken
possession of on or about 12th of September, 1963. Jn this appeal we -1
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 appel-
H !ant is one of the owners of the property in question deriving their title
AWAZ v. KHADER [MUKHARJI, J.] 1233

and right from the said Saif Nawaz Jung. On or about 3rd February, A
1970 the Collector issued notice for acquisition of the property under
section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Pro-
perty 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 B
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 landholders to prevent the excessive sub-division of
agricultural holdings and empower government to assume in certain
circumstances the management of agricultural lands, to provide for the C
registration of Co-operative Farms and to make further provision for
matters incidental thereto. Section 2(r) states that the expression 'pro-
tected' 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 D
that a person shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (Z) 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 certain purposes. Section 35 ef the said Act E
deals with decision on claims and stipulates by sub-section (1) of Sec-
tion 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 landholder, or any person claiming to
be so deemed, may, within one year from the commencement of the
Act apply in the prescribed form to the Tahsildar for the decision of F
the question 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 declara- G
tion 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 H
1234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 with right of protected tenants to
exchange lands. Section 40 of the·said Act makes rights of protected
tenant heritable. 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
B 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 f'
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. Sub-
section (4) of section 40 stipulates that the interest of a protected
C 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:

D "99. Bar of Jurisdiction:- (I) Save as provided in this Act
no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or
deal with any question which is by or under this Act
required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsil-
dar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or

E
-Government. +
(Z) 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.'

F Section 102 of the said Act stipulates that the Act shall not apply
to certain lands and areas and provides inter a/ia as follows:

"102. Nothing in this Act shall apply-

(a) to lands leased, granted, alienated or acquired in
G favour of or by the Central Government or the ~···
State Government, a local authority or a Co-
operative Society."

It is relevant at this stage to refer to certain provisions of the
Central Act to consider the controversy involved in this appeal. The
H Central Act was enacted giving power for requisitioning and acquisi-
AWAZ v. Kf!ADER [MUKflARJI, J.) 1235

tion of immovable property for Union purposes. Secti.on 3 of the said
A
.., Act gave power to requisition immovable property. Section 4 of the
said Act empowers taking possession of requisitioned property. Sec-
ti on 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. Section 8 deals with princi- B
pies and method of determining compensation either for requisitioning
t or acquisition of the property and, inter alia, provides for appointment
of an arbitrator in certain contingencies in case there was no agree-
.- ~
ment for determining compensation. Section 9 deals with the payment
of compensation and provides that the amount of compensation pay-
able under an award shall, subject to any rules made under that Act,
be paid by a competent authority to the person or persons entitled
c
)(
thereto in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the
award. Suspecting that the entry in the Protected Tenancy Register
might not be genuine, on or about 24th of October, 1970 the Tahsildar
passed an order cancelling that entry. The main question centres
around the right of Abdul Khader, respondent No. 1 herein to the D
compensation awarded by the arbitrator, it is therefore, necessary to
refer to the relevant portion of the said order which inter alia, stated as
'follows:
.... "By perusal of the Tenancy Register of 1958 it is

- evident that Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader is not a genuine pro-
tected tenant. The entries of this particular so called tenant
is doubtful. I suspect that somebody has tampered the
E

register and entered the name of Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader.
~
Separate enquiry in this connection is going on in this office
to know under what circumstances such entry has been
made and copy also issued without knowledge of the F
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. G
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 1971 and by judgment and order passed on 27th August,
1971, the learned single Judge, Vaidya, J. held, inter alia, as follows: H
1236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A "Whether the petitioner (Abdul Khader) is a protected
tenant or whether he has any prima facie interest in the suit
property are matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of 1'-
the arbitrator who has to be appointed under Section 8 of
the 'Central Act'."

B In the appeal of Abdul Khader the proceedings of Revenue Divi-
sional Officer while questioning entry of the name of Abdul Khader in
the Register is a genuine one or not and while it is stated that it was t
entered in the Register in such suspicious way by giving Serial No.1/A f
between Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of Regjster being Exhibit A. 106 and ..,. -
Exhibit A. 107, it ultimately held that Abdul Khader was a protected
C tenant under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act. On or about
19th of April, 1972 the order was passed by the District Revenue
Officer who held that. Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant. He y
held further that Khasra Pahani which is the basic record of occupancy
period after spot inspections does not find the name of Abdul Khader
and' further held that all entries except this entry in the Protected
D 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 pro- +
E tected 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 acquired for military purpose
F under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable pro-
perty Act, 1952 and that Sri M.S. Sharma, the Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has already been
appointed as Arbitrator under the Act for determining the
compensation and the persons entitled to it. Not only that,
in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner in this
G Court, it was held that it is not necessary to go into the
questi6n 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 juris-
diction 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
AWAZ v. KHADER [MUKHARJI. J.J 1237

petitioner was a protected tenant of the lands or not and if A
he was the protected tenant to what share in the compensa-
tion amount he would be entitled to. Under these circum-
stances, the C.R.P. is dismissed with a direction that the
entry made in the Final Record of Tenancies that ihe
petitioner was the protected tenant, for the lands in ques-
tion which is spurious as found by both the Revenue Divi- B
sional Officer and the District Revenue Officer should be
deleted."

The matter was brought to this Court by a special leave applica-
tion and this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil} N~. 10 of 1975 on
or about 30th January, 1975 held that since the question whether the C
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 D
Claim petition was also filed by Abdul Khader claiming 60% of com-
pensation 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 E
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 October, 1984
for adducing additional evidence to mark Kaulnama dated 2nd of F
December, 1950 for the first time and Oubuliatnama dated 2nd
December, 1950 as exhibits in deciding the protected tenancy rights.
The appellant objected to that application but the High Court on Isl
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 G
Arbitrator to go into the question whether Abdul Khader was a pro-
tected 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:-
H
1238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A "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 jurisdiction of
the arbitrator appointed and functioning under the Requi-
B sitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 195 l
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
\
I
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
c view that the High Court should determine this question.
The High Court shall decide the question of jurisdiction
referred to above in light of the submissions to be made by
both the parties.

0 ' 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
E 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."

F 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 observed that there was no need for further clarifica-
tion. 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
G 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
H protected tenant of Saif Gulshan of the area 19-02 guntas excluding the
AWAZ v. KHADER [MUKHARJI, J.J 1239

land of buildings. wells, etc. and (4) what share is to be apportioned to
... successors of Saif Nawaz Jung. It has to be borne in mind that in the
A
award, the arbitrator after exhaustively discussing the evidence ou
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. B
t
' In this appeal we are concerned with the question whether 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 c
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.l.R. 1985 S.C. 1576 on the question of solatium and interest on the
amount awarded. The judgment also dealt with the question as to who
were the successors of Nawaz Jung. We are also not concerned with
this aspect of the matter inasmuch as the same is the subject matter of D
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. E
Abdul Khader, on December 3, 1950 was filed and was marked as
Exhibit C- I. 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 consideration the
judgment in Suit No. 13( 1) of 1951-52 by the tenant. The High Court
~ on consideration of these documents was of the view that these docu- F
ments showed unequivocally that the tenancy was in favour of Shaik
Hussain from 1935. After his death Mohd. Abdul Khader was recog-
nised 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 G
son Mohd. Abdul Khader became a tenant. In this background the
Court addressed itself to the question whether Abdul Khader was a
protected tenant or not entitled to 60% of .the compensation. No docu'.
ment was filed to show that Abdul Khader was declared by the
revenue courts as a protected tenant.
H
1240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 enforce-
ment of the said Act Abdul Khader, respondent herein, was a pro-
tecced tenant. The High Court thereafter discussed the facts men-
tion~d hereinbefore about the order of the District Revenue Officer
B 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, how-
ever, of the view that it cannot be said that it was for the revenue
-
C 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 n in
D 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 pro-
tected tenant under section 34 read with section 37 or under section
37-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The High Court on reciting the facts
came to the conclusions, inter a/ia: (a) that Abdul Khader because he
E was a tenant between January, 1942 to January, 1948 for six years,
therefore, was a protected 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 Saif Gulshan under sub-clause (iii) of clause (1) of section 34
of Act 21 of 1950. In these circumstances, the High Court held that
F Adbul Khader was entitled to 60% of the compensation paid.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants 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
G 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 whether
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
that Abdui Khader was not a protected tenant by the reV,enue
H authorities it was not open to the arbitrator to decide the question of
AWAZ v. KHADER [MUKHARJI; J.) 1241

protected tenancy. The arbitrator therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction A
~ 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 requisition-
ing and acquisition must be determined under the Central Act and the
arbitrator was the authority to decide that question. The question of B
• Abdul Khader's right to compensation had to be decided in accor-
1 dance with law. He had claimed rights of a protected tenant. He had
sought to establish his rights which must be found within the four-
f' comers of the Andhra Pradesh Act along with other documents be-
cause 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 C
60%. The rights of the protected tenants have been defined in the
~ndhra Pradesh Act and relevant provisions of that Act namely, sec-
tions 34, 37, 37A aild 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 twci orders of this Court as
we have mentioned hereinbefore dated 30th of January, 1975 and 19th D
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 filly civil court to go into the question whether Abdul Khader
was a protected tenant and as such·the arbitrator and the High Court E
had no jurisdiction to decide this question. For this reliance was placed
on Section 102 of th'e 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 Government etc.
and on Section 9\1 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts
~to deal with any question which is under the Andhra Pradesh Act F
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.
G
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 H
1242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A Pradesh Act mentions that after acquisition the Act was not to apply in
respect of certain land. Therefore, it was submitted by the respon-
dents 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 question did not apply in case of compensation
payable. In the background of the totality of circumstances as manifest
B
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 authorities that it was spurious. That in any event what was
the interest of Abdul Khader had to be determined in determining the
C 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 )r'
consideration by the arbitrator. 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.
0
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
E 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 Atchi Appalareddi and another v. Special
-
Tahsildar, land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam Municipality and
F another, (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 interested' 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.

G · . 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 hereinbefore, this Court had left it open to the High Court
and to the arbitrator to decide whether he is a protected tenant or not.
....• ~ ,_
H The arbitrator has decided that question and the· High Court found
AWAZ v. KHADER {MUKHARJ!, J.] 1243

over-whelming evidence in support of it. In that view of the matter we A
must uphold that decision however unsatisfactory it might appear that
a fruit plucker gets 60% of the compensation while the owners get only
40%. If that is the law let it be.

fo the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal must fail and is
B
accprdingly dismissed with costs.

P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

--