A tenant is a person interested as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He has a right to object to the acquisition and/or to the quantum of compensation the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, as the case may be has to ascertain the value of his right in the property acquired and compensate him in that behalf.

( 1 ) THE question that arises in this appeal is whether a tenant on respect of an agricultural land is entitled to any share in the compensation and further, whether the statutory protection given to him, creates or enhances any such right.

( 2 ) AN extent of 21 Acres in T. S. No. 46, Block No. 4, Visakha- patnam Municipality, has been acquired under the provisions of the land ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, 1894. Three sets of persons applied for compensation, namely, i) members of Mosalaganti family (who are respondents 4 to 9 in O. P. 139/1967, from which this appeal arises); (ii) smt. Rao Padma (first claimant in the said O. P. ). Each of the said parties claimed the compensation exclusively. The Land concerned herein is situated in the erstwhile Maddulapalem Zamindari estate. The said land constituted a Darmila inam, not burdened with service, and it was granted in favour of Mosalaganti family with a favourable rate of Kattubadi . Mosalaganti family granted a permanent lease on 13-6-1908 (Exs. A 2 and A-3), in respect of this land, in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants herein for agricultural pur_ poses, in accordance with section 15 of Regulation XXX of 1802. In other words, by virtue of the permanent lease, the Kudivaram right, came to be vested in the appellant s family. In O. S. No. 272 of 1912, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, fhe right and interest of the appellant s family was sold under a decree obtained against the family, and one Duvva Appadu became the auction- purchaser thereof; but, the latter sold the land again to the appellant s family under a registered sale-deed dated 4-8-1919 (Ex. B 26 ). Thereafter, the appellant s family sold its interest to the Maharaja of Pitha- puram, the prodecessor-in-interest of the 2nd respondent herein (first claimant in the O. P.), under a registered sale-deed dated 26-9-1921 (Ex. B 24 ). The land was, however, immediately leased back to the appellant s family by the Maharaja. The appellant s family has, there fore, been in possession and enjoyment of the land since 1921, by virtue of the lease granted by the Maharaja, and prior thereto under the various transactions referred to herein-before.

( 3 ) THE said Zamindari estate was abolished and taken over under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948, with effect from 12-1-1951. After the abolition, proceedings were taken under Sec. 15 of the Act, and a patta appears to have been granted in favour of Mosalaganti people thereunder. Against that order, both the 2nd respondent herein and the appellants family filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were allowed setting aside the patta granted in favour of Mosalaganti family. At the same time, the Tribunal made it clear that it was not going into or deciding the rights inter se between the 2nd respondent herein and the appellants tamily. The matter was left open for decision by an appropriate tribunal. In other words, the question whether the 2nd respondent is entitled thereto, was left open for decision in appropriate proceedings. Before, however, the said issue could be settled under the provisions of the said Act, the land came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 4 ) WE are not concerned herein with the claim for compensation put forward by the Mosalaganti family, since they gave up their claim in the O. P. and are therefore, not parties to this appeal. The contest is between the 2nd respondent herein (first claimant in the o. P. and the appellants herein (claimants 2 and 3 in the O. P. ). The 2nd respondent s claim is that what was originally acquired by the appellant s family and has since then been the subject-matter of suits and alienations, is only the Kudivaram right in the land. Under the permanent lease contained in Exs. A-2 and A-3, the appellants family became the Kudivaramdar, and it is that right which was ultimately sold to the Maharaja under Ex. B-24, in 19