Petitioners, who are five in number, are statedly statutory tenants of second respondent, namely, Sri Bheemeswaraswamy temple, Bhimalapuram Village, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District, in respect of land in R.S.No.34/5 admeasuring Acs.5.92, R.S.No.95/1, and R.S.No.90/4 admeasuring Ac.1.98 situated in said Village. The land is owned by second respondent temple. Petitioners also allege that they are entitled for protection under provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short, Tenancy Act) and that they are paying makta/annual rent without committing default or delay. In 1996, land was acquired by Government for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections. Petitioners made a petition to first respondent claiming 60% of the compensation as tenants, in vain. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of respondents in considering claim of petitioners for payment of 60% of the compensation as illegal, arbitrary and for such consequential direction.

2. Second respondent temple filed a counter-affidavit. Present status of petitioners as tenants is denied. It is stated that petitioners are not statutory tenants and there is no such declaration issued by competent civil Court and therefore, they cannot be considered as such. Lease in favour of petitioners expired long back. Petitioners fell in arrears. Therefore, second respondent temple filed suits, being O.S.Nos.101 of 1994 and 56 of 2001 and S.C.Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2000. Petitioners are no more cultivating tenants. It is also contended that by reason of judgment of Supreme Court in State of A.P., v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi1, Tenancy Act has no application to charitable religious institutions governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Endowments Act, for brevity). Therefore, they are not entitled for apportionate compensation. Government - first respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit.

3. Sri Nagesh, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioners submits that a tenant governed by Tenancy Act is a "person interested" entitled to challenge acquisition proceedings and also claim apportionate share in compensation awarded by Government. He placed reliance on Samadhi Narayana v. State of A.P.2 and Bammidi Jagannayakulu v. District Collector, Srikakulam3. There cannot be any dispute that a tenant in possession of land acquired is a "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity).

4.Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that they can always challenge acquisition proceedings before appropriate forum. Merely because he is "person interested" within the meaning of LA Act, can he, without proving right, claim compensation and for that purpose participate in award enquiry. The answer must be in the negative.

5.In Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja4, Supreme Court considered the question of locus of a tenant to assail acquisition proceedings and/or claim compensation. Referring to Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd.5, their Lordships observed as below:

In the light of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. [(1996)11 SCC 501)] it cannot be said that in no case, the tenant of the land which is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Act can challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is clear from Section 5-A(3) of the Act that for the purpose of the said section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired. In an appropriate case, a tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land can challenge the acquisition proceedings. (emphasis s