Apportioning Land Acquisition Compensation Between Landlords and Tenants Under the 75 Percent to 25 Percent Ratio

When the government exercises its power of eminent domain to acquire land for public purposes, the process of determining fair compensation is rarely straightforward. A particularly complex issue arises when the land is not vacant but is subject to a tenancy agreement. In such scenarios, a fundamental question emerges: how is compensation divided between landlords and tenants?

In many Indian judicial proceedings, a consistent benchmark has emerged where courts often apportion 75% of the compensation to the landlord and 25% to the tenant. This ratio is not a statutory mandate written into the law, but rather a developed judicial trend that seeks to balance the inherent rights of property ownership against the legitimate interests of a tenant who may have spent years cultivating the land or improving the property.

The Legal Framework for Compensation Apportionment

The division of compensation typically falls under the purview of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and its contemporary successor, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). Under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, the government must ensure that the apportionment reflects each party's stake in the property.

Generally, the compensation package covers the market value of the land, any permanent structures, and the loss of tenancy rights. In a standard scenario, the split is viewed as follows:

• The Landlord (Typically 75%): Receives the majority share because they hold the legal title and capitalized land value.
• The Tenant (Typically 25%): Receives a smaller portion to account for the loss of tenancy rights, expenditures on improvements, or the loss of an unexpired lease term.

As observed in specific rulings, the landlord is entitled to 75% of the compensation, while the cultivating tenant is entitled to 25% based on evidence and precedents 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3129.

Why the 75-25 Split? Factors That Influence the Ratio

Courts avoid applying rigid formulas because every land dispute contains unique facts. While the 75-25 split is a common starting point, several variables can shift this percentage in favor of either party.

1. The Nature and Duration of the Lease

The security of the tenure is a primary driver of the ratio. A short-term, fixed lease rarely grants the tenant more than 25%. However, perpetual or extremely long-term leases—such as those spanning 99 years—can significantly increase the tenant's share. In the case of Union of India v. A. Ajit Singh, a 99-year lease resulted in a flipped ratio where the tenant received 75% and the landlord received 25% 1997 6 Supreme 39. Similarly, in Narayan Das Khettry v. ..., tenants were granted 75% of the compensation due to the permanent nature of their leases 2003 0 Supreme(Kar) 1086.

2. Improvements and Structures

If a tenant has invested significant capital into the land—such as erecting buildings or installing irrigation—they are entitled to compensation for those improvements. In commercial or industrial leases, if the tenant erected the primary structures, the ratio often shifts heavily in their favor 1975 0 Supreme(Mad) 622.

3. Length of Possession and Land Use

Long-term occupancy strengthens a tenant's claim to a larger slice of the compensation. Furthermore, the type of land matters; for instance, land that was waste land and was cleared and made productive by a tenant may entitle that tenant to higher compensation for disturbance, as noted under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 18872023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1768.

Key Judicial Precedents and Rulings

The 75-25 benchmark has been affirmed in various High Court rulings. For instance, the Madras High Court, dealing with a dispute under the National Highways Act, ruled that the cultivating tenant is entitled to 25% of the compensation amount and the... landlord/temple is entitled to 75% 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3129. This specific ruling aligned with precedents such as Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3129.

Similarly, a Delhi High Court case affirmed that apportionment should be in the ratio of 75% to the landlord and 25% for the tenant SHAM LAL AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS.

However, variations exist based on the specific interest of the parties. In M/s Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage Ltd. v. Union of India, after 18 years of enjoyment, the courts considered a 60% tenant and 40% landlord split to be reasonable 1997 6 Supreme 39 SHAM LAL AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS.

Summary of Apportionment Factors

The following table illustrates how different factors generally influence the compensation percentage:

| Factor | Landlord Favor (Higher %) | Tenant Favor (Higher %) || :--- | :--- | :--- || Lease Term | Short-term or Fixed-term | Long-term or Perpetual || Improvements | No structures built by tenant | Substantial structures/buildings || Possession | Recent occupancy | Decades-long occupancy || Land Type | Vacant or Prime land | Cultivated or Waste-cleared land |

Procedural Steps for Securing Compensation

For those involved in a land acquisition dispute, the process typically involves several critical stages:

1. Pre-Notification Objections: Landowners and tenants should file objections and attend official inquiries prior to the final notification.
2. Reference to Civil Court: If there is a dispute regarding the apportionment of the award, parties may seek a reference to a civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1997 6 Supreme 39.
3. Evidence Submission: To argue for a higher percentage, tenants must provide evidence of possession (rent receipts, tax returns) and documentation of improvement costs.
4. Appeals: Parties may challenge the reference court's decision in the High Court under Article 227 or approach the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

It is important to note that in cases under the RFCTLARR Act, the consent of a lessee is not binding without proper statutory approval; the official statutory process must be strictly followed 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9762.

Final Takeaways

While the 75% landlord and 25% tenant split is a frequent judicial benchmark, it is not a universal law. The final ratio is an exercise in equity, where the court weighs the landlord's ownership against the tenant's investment and tenure security. For tenants seeking a larger share, the primary objective should be proving substantial improvements to the land or the permanence of their lease. For landlords, documenting the primacy of ownership and the temporary nature of the tenancy is key. Because legal outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, these figures should be viewed as general trends rather than guaranteed outcomes.