The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of compensation between landowners and tenants under the Land Acquisition Act, considering the nature of the tenancy, construction on the acquired land, and the rights of the original landowners and the tenant.

( 1 ) M. F. A 5967/2001 has been filed by the appellants/original land owners under Section 54 (1) r/w. Section 30 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ). , Bagalkot on 30-8-2001 in L. A. C. No. 228/ 2000 whereby the reference Court has apportioned the compensation awarded by respondent No. 2 at the rate of 25% and 75%.

( 2 ) M. F. A Cr. Ob 22/2002 has been filed by the Cross-Objector/ Anubhavadhar challenging the judgment and Award dated 30-8-2001 passed in L. A. C. No. 228/2000 by the II Additional Civil judge (Sr. Dn ). , Bagalkot on 30-8-2001, in so far as not awarding remaining 25% of compensation amount and to modify that this cross objector is entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation awarded.

( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to M. F. A. NO. 5967/2001 are that the appellants were the owners of the property bearing T. P. No. 262-H, measuring 69. 89 sq mtrs situate at Ward No. 10, Bagalkot. The first respondent herein was a tenant paying monthly rent and he was in possession of the aforesaid property. Originally, the Government has granted 69. 89 sq. mts of land to the ancestors of the appellants in 1930. The first respondent's ancestors were the anubhavadar's and they have erected the huts in the portion of the said land and started living by paying monthly rent. But, respondent No. 2 herein acquired the said property of the appellants under Section 4 (1) notification dated 1-2-1996 and after following the mandatory provisions the second respondent passed an award determining the market value of the property in question at Rs. 1,56,454/- by relying on the report of the Executive Engineer, BTDA who has valued the building under acquisition at Rs. 78,302/- and the amount awarded by second respondent has been deposited. Appellant No. 3 Hanumya @ Hanumanthappa had filed an application before the second respondent contending that the name of the anubhavadar has been wrongly entered in the records of the acquired property and all such entries are bogus, false and vexatious and therefore himself and other appellants are alone entitled to receive the said sum of Rs. 1,40,809/- which includes , deduction of Rs. 15,645/- towards which income tax. Whereas, the first respondent has set up a defence, of permanent lease, therefore, the burden of proving the fact that the lease in question is a permanent lease is on the Anubhavadar. Their ancestors have erected huts and houses. The ancestors of the appellants had executed a permanent lease in their favour. Therefore, he being the anubhavadhar is entitled to receive the entire award amount. He also filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C. to deposit Rs. 1,40,809/- in F. D. Accordingly, the second respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication and for apportionment.

( 4 ) IN order to prove their respective rights, Appellant No. 5 was examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs. P1 to P4 whereas, respondent No. 1 was examined himself as d. W. 1 and got examined one person by name Chidanad Takappa Borannavar, as D. W. 2 and got marked 9 documents as Exs. Dl to D9.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing both sides, and after considering the materials placed on record by both parties, the reference Court has come to the conclusion that the ancestors of first respondent started residing in a portion of the land allotted to the ancestors of the appellants on a monthly rent basis by erecting sheds and the first respondent and their ancestors belong to korava community and accordingly appellants are entitled to 25% of the compensation in respect of the acquired property whereas the first respondent being the tenant is entitled to 75% of the compensation. The appellants being not satisfied with the Judgment and award passed by the reference court have come up in this appeal contending that they are alone entitled to the entire compensation amount deposited in the Ci