LexGALIB BIN AWAZ versus MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GAUB BIN AW AZ v. MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS. \ APRIL 28, 1987 A [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: ss. 2(r), 34, 35, 37, 37 A, 40, 99 & 102-Applicability of to lands acquired by Central Government-Interest of protected tenant-Determination ~· c 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 37 A 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 B c .0 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 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. '"\ 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 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 F G issue. 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. 37 A 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 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 ten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.