This appeal arises out of the said judgment.
The companytroversy 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.
The land was taken possession of under a panchanama dated 12th of September, 1963.
After his death Mohd.
After giving our due companysideration to the question we are of the view that the High Court should determine this question.
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.
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.
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.
According to the High Court the documents discussed in the judgment indicated that Shaik Hussain was a tenant from 1935.
Separate enquiry in this companynec tion is going on in this office to know under what circumstances such entry has been made and companyy also issued without knowledge of the Tahsildar.
In Civil Revision Petition No.
Abdul Khader is number a genuine protected tenant.
Hence I suspect the entry and order to cancel the companyy of the tenancy issued in favour of Sri Modh.
We direct that the appellants shall withdraw number more than 40 per cent of the companypensation 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 companycerned.
The appellant is one of the owners of the property in question deriving their title 1233 and right from the said Sail Nawaz Jung.
The Court reiterated that there was surfeit of evidence to declare that Abdul Khader was a tenant.
This Court passed the order, on 19th August, 1985.
Sd Tahsildar.
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.
He had claimed rights as a tenant during the requisition.
The entries of this particular so called tenant is doubtful.
The document recited permitted to utilise garden fruits, flowers and mango fruits.
The said order is important and reads as follows 1238 Special leave are granted.
Other C.M.Ps.
The High Court took into companysid eration the judgment in Suit No.
were filed for clarification of the second part of the order dated 19th August, 1985 and this Court on 29th November, 1985 in CMPs.
The appellant objected to that application but the High Court on 1st April, 1985 appointed Advocate Commissioner to record additional evidence.
Section 37A was enacted on 12th of March, 1956.
I suspect that somebody has tampered the register and entered the name of Sri Mohd.
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.
The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Shanker Ghosh, A.V. Rangam and T.V. Ratnam for the Appellant.
Three civil appeals were filed before this Court against the order of the High Court on 15th May, 1985.
The High Court numbericed 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.
If he was a tenant, the High Court observed.
We agree with his submission.
The High Court was of the view that the arbitrator was to decide that question and the arbitrator was number in error in deciding the issue in the manner it did.
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.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.
Shri Subba Rao, learned companynsel for the respondents submits that the appellants should number be permitted to withdraw from the authorities companycerned more than 40 per cent of the total companypensation awarded in respect of the lands in question pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court.
Abdul Khader.
The Gazette Notification for the acquisition was issued on 12th March, 1970.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant claiming as one of the owners of the property filed a statutory appeal to the High Court.
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.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the respondents on the above question.
1948 Sail Nawaz Jung, the then ruler of Mukkalla State, South Yeman in Arabia settled some of the properties with which the appeal is companycerned by a Registered Tamleeknama in favour of his son Sultan Awaz and his grand son Galib Bin Awaz.
Kowlnama executed in favour of Shaik Hussain was number filed.
Suspect ing that the entry in the Protected Tenancy Register might number 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.
In this appeal we are companycerned with the claim for companypensation for the said acquisition by one Abdul Khader who was a flower picker.
13 1 of 195 1 52 by the tenant.
The question was whether on enforcement of the said Act Abdul Khader, respondent herein, was a protected tenant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court also referred to the directions of this Court dated 19th August, 1985 mentioned hereinbefore.
The tenant was permitted to raise flower trees at his own expenses.
1/A between Serial Nos.
XXI of 1950 hereinafter called the Andhra Pradesh Act .
Abdul Khader.
Dr. Chitale learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court should be directed to companysider the issues relating to the jurisdic 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 number in the light of Sections 99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950.
1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.A.O. Nos.
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 discussed 18 documents out of which two are challans and other depositions.
Ashok Sen. A. Subba Rao, Qamaruddin, Mrs, Qamaruddin, S.S. Rao and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.
The appeal is heard.
It was in those circumstances held by him that the entry was a spurious one.
On or about 3rd February, 1970 the Collector issued numberice 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 .
On or about 23rd of August, 1963 the Military Estate Officer, Secunderabad of.
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.
Hyderabad West Taluk.
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.
On or about 19th of April, 1972 the order was passed by the Dis trict Revenue Officer who held that Abdul Khader was number a protected tenant.
He held further that Khasra Pahani which is the basic record of occupancy period after spot inspec tions does number 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.
Abdul Khader, on December 3, 1950 was filed and was marked as Exhibit C 1.
1240 The High Court was of the view that there was surfeit of evidence prior to the companymencement of the Andhra Pradesh Act that Shaik Hussain was a tenant of the land.
Abdul Khader was recognised as the tenant.
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 companypensation money payable for the acquisition of the land excluding the land of buildings, wells etc.
4692 to 4694 of 1985 clarified and ob served that there was numberneed for further clarification.
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.
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.
His claim for companypensation for requisition was settled by sharing the rent in or about 1969.
In 1954, there was Wakfnama by the said Sail Nawaz Jung.
The Kowlnama executed in favour of the son, Mohd.
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 companypensation 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.
In this background the Court addressed itself to the question wheth er Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or number entitled to 60 of the companypensation.
On or about th of April.
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 companypound wail measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas situated in the heart of Hyderabad city near Sarojini Devi Hospital.
The judgment also dealt with the question as to who were the successors of Nawaz Jung.
and 4 what share is to be apportioned to successors of Sail Nawaz Jung.
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.
Abdul Khader became a tenant.
2010 of 1986.
1 herein to the companypensation 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 lows By perusal of the Tenancy Register of 1958 it is evident that Sri Mohd.
The property in question was taken possession of on or about 12th of September, 1963.
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.
It was observed that the High Court was at liberty to companysider 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 companypensation.
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.
After his death on July 18, 1949, his son Mohd.
737 of 1981 275 of 1982 and 69 of 1984.
The High Court on companysideration of these documents was of the view that these documents showed unequivocally that the tenancy was in favour of Shaik Hussain from 1935.
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 number a protected tenant and directed deletion of entry made in the Final Record of tenancies as a spurious one.
The judgment under appeal was passed on 15th of April, 1986.
