(V. Eswaraiah, J.)

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 29-07-2010, passed in O.P.No.14 of 1994, by the Subordinate Judge, Razole, East Godavari District.

The said O.P. arises under reference made by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry-2nd respondent herein under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to decide the dispute as to the title and to pay the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

The Reference Court by the aforesaid order held that the land in question belongs to the appellant-Temple and the 1st respondent herein is a cultivating tenant and therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled for 40% of the compensation and the appellant Temple is entitled for 60% of the compensation deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer into the court along with proportionate benefits accrued thereon. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard both the counsel. This Court appreciates the argument advanced by Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

The appellant hereinafter would be referred to as the Temple and the 1st respondent herein as a tenant.

Learned counsel appearing for the Temple submits that the tenant has failed to discharge his burden to prove that he was a cultivating tenant by adducing any relevant material before the Reference court and at the same time, the court erroneously observed that the Temple failed to produce DCB register before the court below. Ex.B-1 bunch of rent and land revenue receipts and Ex.B-2 certified copy of order in ATC No.31/86 have no relevance to decide the issue that the tenant is a cultivating tenant, so as to enable him to claim any compensation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant submits that as per Ex.B-1 bunch of rent and land revenue receipts and Ex.B-2-certified copy of order in ATC No.31 of 86, there cannot be any dispute that the tenant was a cultivating tenant and the Temple is the landlord of the land acquired. It is further stated that he is a tenant within the meaning of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 and as per the Amendment Act 39/74 relating to the A.P. Tenancy Act, 56, the statutory tenant is entitled for 40% of the compensation and the landlord is entitled for 60% of the compensation. Therefore, the counsel would submit that the tenant is entitled for 40% of the compensation as held by the Reference Court, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Reference court. We have perused the records.

The admitted facts are that the land admeasuring Ac.0-44 cents in R.S.No.346/1B and 346/1C situated at Kadali village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, was acquired pursuant to 4(1) Notification published on 16-05-1992 and after conducting enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, Award No.10 of 1983 was passed on 20-02-1993. The total land acquired was Ac.5-02 cents, but the subject matter of the reference under Section 31(2) of the Act is only in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-44 cents i.e., in R.S.No.346/1B an extent of Ac.0-43 cents and R.S.No.346/1C an extent of Ac.0-01 cents.

During the course of enquiry of the award proceedings, the Executive Officer of the Temple claimed that the Temple is the owner of the said land. However, reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act on the ground that the Executive Officer of the Temple having attended for the award enquiry, on behalf of the Temple, filed a statement in support of the ownership of the land claiming total compensation, but did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was ordered to be deposited into the Court under Section 31(2) of the Act for payment after adjudication. Pursuant to the reference by the Referring Officer, the matter was re