Judgment:
ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. 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 Reddi : AIR2001SC3616 , 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. 1990(1) ALT 237 (D.B.) and Bammidi Jagannayakulu v. District Collector, Srikakulam : 2000(3)ALD15 .
4. 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). 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. In Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja : AIR2004SC3582 , Supreme Court considered the question of locus of a tenant to assail acquisition proceedings and/or claim compensation. Referring to Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. : AIR1997SC482 , their Lordships observed as below.
5. In the light of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. : AIR1997SC482 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.
6. Thus, if a tenant is able to show either under common law, statute law or constitutional law that he has sufficient subsisting enforceable interest to claim compensation, there cannot be any objection for considering such claim. To similar effect are the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in A. Appala Reddy v. Spl. Tahsildar 1978(2) APLJ 269.
7. A tenant is a 'person interested' as defined in Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act. 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. No hard and fast Rule can be laid down, nor can any universally applicable, formula, be evolved in the matter of apportionment between the owner and the tenant. It all depends upon the content of the tenant's right(s). The terms of the lease may have to be looked into for ascertaining the content and value of his right(s) and if he is a statutory tenant, the terms of the statute have to be looked to for the purpose. An over- all view has got to be taken and the proportion of their respective interests determined.
What is an appropriate context wherein a tenant can claim compensation? As mentioned supra, a tenant can succeed if it is shown that he has right under a lease deed or in common law or under Constitution. In this case, petitioners claim certain rights under Tenancy Act. In Samadhi Narayana (supra), Division Bench of this Court following Appala Reddy (supra) was dealing with a case of a tenant of a temple under Tenancy Act. Therefore, it was observed that a tenant governed by Tenancy Act is entitled to a share in the compensation. If Tenancy Act applies in respect of a lease by a charitable institution governed by Endowments Act, certainly tenant of religious institution can claim a share. Section 82 of Endowments Act rendered all the tenancies of temple lands given by charitable and religious institutions invalid from the date of coming into force of Section 82(1) of Endowments Act and lease in respect of temple lands stands cancelled. This provision has been upheld - incidentally reversing Samadhi Narayana (supra), by Supreme Court in Nallamilli Rami Reddi (supra).
8. When Tenancy Act has no application the tenant of second respondent temple, as alleged cannot be entitled to a share in the compensation. Law as of now does not confer any such right on a tenant of religious institution.
9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.