D. REDDEPPA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arising out of references under Sec. 31 (1) of the L. A. Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) relate to determination of rival claims between the landlord and the tenants. The Big Mosque, Guntur, represented by its muthavalli M. A. Azeem Baig, the landlord, has preferred the appeals against the judgments and decrees dt. 27-6-1990 in LAOP Nos. 274 and 275 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, directing apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenants in the ratio of 40:60. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the landlord will be referred to hereinafter as the appellant and the tenants as the respondents.

( 3 ) THE appellant claimed to be the owner of the land measuring ac. 46-86 cents and Ac. 10-91 cents situated in Reddipalem, Guntur Town. The said land was acquired under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of providing house sites to the encroachers residing on the road margins. The land Acquisition Officer passed award No. 5/81 dt. 24-2-1981 in respect of the land measuring Ac. 46-86 cents and award No. 6/81 dt. 24-2-81 in respect of the land measuring Ac. 10-91 cents, determining the market value of the land at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. As there was dispute between the appellant and the respondents over the apportionment of the compensation awarded, the matters were referred to the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, guntur, on whose file, they were registered as LAOP. Nos. 274 and 275 of 1982. Later the appellant and the respondents set up claims for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Thereupon, the matters were treated as references under Secs. 18 as well as 31 of the Act.

( 4 ) BEFORE the reference Court, the appellant laid claim for the entire amount of compensation though it admitted that the respondents were the cultivating tenants of the acquired land. The A. P. Wakf Board, who is one of the claimants in both petitions also put forth its claim for the entire amount of compensation. Their claim was seriously resisted by the respondents. However, we consider it unnecessary to refer their individual claims in detail, Enough to state that few of them in LAOP No. 274/82 claimed absolute ownership over the land under their possession and enjoyment on the ground that they or their predecessors-in-title purchased the same from the Mutavalli of the appellant in the year 1965 under registered sale deeds. Some of them claimed 40% share. It is necessary to mention here that in the claim statements filed on behalf of claimants 2,3,4 and 7 (respondents 1 to 4 in A. S. No. 3231/90) it is found that 40% is altered as 60%. Claimants 2 to 5 in LAOP No. 275/82 (respondents 1 to 4 in A. S. No. 148/91) laid claim for 50% share.

( 5 ) VOLUMINOUS evidence, both oral and documentary was adduced on behalf of all parties to the petitions. On consideration of the same, the trial court enhanced the market value of the land from Rs. 15,000/- to rs. 50,000/- per acre. With regard to the ownership of the acquired land, it rejected the plea of some of the respondents that they are the absolute owners. Finally, it held that the appellant is the absolute owner of the acquired land and the respondents are its tenants. However, treating the respondents as protected tenants as defined under A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Telangana Tenancy Act ) and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Galib Bin Awaz vs. Mohd. Abdul Khader and others held that the appellant and the Wakf Board would be entitle to 40% share payable towards compensation for the acquired land and the respondents the remaining 60%. It further directed that the compensation payable to the appellant and the Wakf Board shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document