ivil Appeal No 2010 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 154
1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AAO Nos
737 of 1981 275 of 1982 and 69 of 1984
Shanker Ghosh AV Rangam and TV Ratnam for the Appellant
Ashok Sen A Subba Rao Qamaruddin Mrs Qamaruddin CSS Rao and SV Deshpande for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 15th April 1986
On or about th of April
1948 Sail Nawaz Jung the then ruler of Mukkalla State South Yeman in Arabia settled some of the properties with which the appeal is concerned by a Registered Tamleeknama in favour of his son Sultan Awaz and his grand son Galib Bin Awaz
In 1954 there was Wakfnama by the said Sail Nawaz Jung
On or about 23rd of August 1963 the Military Estate Officer Secunderabad of
Andhra Pradesh requested for the requisition of the property named as Sail Gulshan with a vast extent of land and palaces with roads and surrounded by a compound wail measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas situated in the heart of Hyderabad city near Sarojini Devi Hospital
The property in question was taken possession of on or about 12th of September 1963
In this appeal we are concerned with the claim for compensation for the said acquisition by one Abdul Khader who was a flower picker
He had claimed rights as a tenant during the requisition
His claim for compensation for requisition was settled by sharing the rent in or about 1969
The appellant is one of the owners of the property in question deriving their title 1233 and right from the said Sail Nawaz Jung
On or about 3rd February 1970 the Collector issued notice for acquisition of the property under section 71 of the being Act 30 of 1952 hereinafter called the Central Act
The Gazette Notification for the acquisition was issued on 12th March 1970
The controversy in this case relates to the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant  under the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 being Act No XXI of 1950 hereinafter called the Andhra Pradesh Act
The purpose of the said Act as the Preamble states was inter alia to enable the land holders to prevent the excessive sub division of agricultur al holdings and empower government to assume in certain circumstances the management of agricultural lands to provide for the registration of Co operative Farms and to make further provision for matters incidental thereto
Section 2r states that the expression protected  means a person who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of the said Act
Chapter IV of the Andhra Pradesh Act deals with protected tenants and section 34 of the said Act provides who is to be considered as a protected tenant and uses the expression that a person shall subject to the provisions of sub sections 2 and 3 be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of the land if he has fulfilled the conditions mentioned in clauses a and b of sub section 1 of Section 34 of the said Act
Sub section 2 of Section 34 of the said Act also deals with to be deemed to be a protected tenant in respect of any land for cer tain purposes
Section 35 of the said Act deals with deci sion on claims and stipulates by sub section 1 of Section 35 of the said Act that if any question arises whether any person and if so what person is deemed under Section 34 to be a protected tenant in respect of any land the landhold er or any person claiming to be so deemed may within one year from the commencement of the Act apply in the pre scribed form to the Tahsildar for the decision of the ques tion and the Tahsildar shall after enquiring into the claim or claims in the manner prescribed declare what person is entitled to be deemed to be protected tenant or as the case may be that no person is so entitled
Sub section 2 of Section 35 stipulates that a declaration by the Tahsildar that the person is deemed to be a protected tenant or in the event of an appeal from the Tahsildar s decision such declaration by the Collector on first appeal or by the Board of Revenue on second appeal shall be conclusive that such person is a protected tenant and his rights as such shall be recorded in the Record of Right of where there is no Record of Rights in such village record as may be prescribed
Section 36 of the said Act deals with the recovery of pos session by protected tenant
Section 37 deals with persons not entitled 1234 under section 34 to be deemed in certain circumstances as protected tenants
Section 38 of the said Act deals with right of protected tenant to purchase land
Section 39 deals with right of protected tenants to exchange lands
Section 40 of the said Act makes rights of protected tenant herita ble
Sub section 2 of section 40 of the said Act indicates who are the heirs who would be entitled to hold the tenancy on the death of the protected tenant and on what terms
Sub section 3 of section 40 of the said Act provides that if a protected tenant dies without leaving any heirs all his rights shall be so extinguished
The explanation to sub section 3 of section 40 of the said Act provides who should be deemed to be the heirs  of a protected tenant
Subsection 4 of section 40 stipulates that the interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant shall form sixty per cent
It is necessary also to note the provisions of section 99 of the Act
It is as follows 99
Bar of Jurisdiction 1 Save as provid ed in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act re quired to be settled decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government
2 No order of the Tahsildar Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court  Section 102 of the said Act stipulates that the Act shall not apply to certain lands and areas and provides inter alia as follows 102
Nothing in this Act shall apply a to lands leased granted alien ated or acquired in favour of or by the Cen tral Government or the State Government a local authority or a Cooperative Society
 It is relevant at this stage to refer to certain provi sions of the Central Act to consider the controversy in volved in this appeal
The Central Act was enacted giving power for requisitioning and acquisi 1235 tion of immovable property for Union purposes
Section 3 of the said Act gave power to requisition immovable property
Section 4 of the said Act empowers taking possession of requisitioned property
Section 5 deals with rights over requisitioned property
Section 6 deals with the power of release from the requisitioning
Section 7 authorises the Central Government where it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to acquire requisitioned property
Sec tion 8 deals with principles and method of determining compensation either for requisitioning or acquisition of the property and inter alia provides for appointment of an arbitrator in certain contingencies in case there was no agreement for determining compensation
Section 9 deals with the payment of compensation and provides that the amount of compensation payable under an award shall subject to any rules made under that Act be paid by a competent authority to the person or persons entitled thereto in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the award
Suspect ing that the entry in the Protected Tenancy Register might not be genuine on or about 24th of October 1970 the Tah sildar passed an order cancelling that entry
The main question centres around the right of Abdul Khader respond ent No 1 herein to the compensation awarded by the arbitra tor it is therefore necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the said order which inter alia stated as fol lows By perusal of the Tenancy Register of 1958 it is evident that Sri Mohd Abdul Khader is not a genuine protected tenant
The entries of this particular so called tenant is doubtful
I suspect that somebody has tampered the register and entered the name of Sri Mohd Abdul Khader
Separate enquiry in this connec tion is going on in this office to know under what circumstances such entry has been made and copy also issued without knowledge of the Tahsildar
Hence I suspect the entry and order to cancel the copy of the tenancy issued in favour of Sri Modh
Abdul Khader
Sd Tahsildar
Hyderabad West Taluk
 This order of cancellation was challenged by Abdul Khadar by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being W P
No 1786 of 197 1 and by judgment and order passed on 27th August 197 1 the learned single Judge Vaidya J held inter alia as follows 1236 Whether the petitioner Abdul Khader is a protected tenant or whether he has any prima facie interest in the suit property are mat ters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the arbitrator who has to be appointed under Section 8 of the Central Act 
 In the appeal of Abdul Khader the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer while questioning entry of the name of Abdul Khader in the Register is a genuine one or net and while it is stated that it was entered in the Register in such suspicious way by giving Serial No 1A between Serial Nos 1 and 2 of Register being Exhibit A 106 and Exhibit A 107 it ultimately held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act
On or about 19th of April 1972 the order was passed by the Dis trict Revenue Officer who held that Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant
He held further that Khasra Pahani which is the basic record of occupancy period after spot inspec tions does not find the name of Abdul Khader and further held that all entries except this entry in the Protected Tenancy Register prepared under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act was supported by an enquiry
It was in those circumstances held by him that the entry was a spurious one
In Civil Revision Petition No 1006 of 1972 which was filed by Abdul Khader as against others Justice R Ramachandra Raju of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on or about 19th August 1974 held that Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant and directed deletion of entry made in the Final Record of tenancies as a spurious one
The learned Judge observed inter alia as follows I am told by the counsel for both the parties that the lands in question were already ac quired for military purpose under the Requisi tion and Acquisition of Immovable property Act 1952 and that Sri MS Sharma the Addi tional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hydera bad has already been appointed as Arbitrator under the Act for determining the compensation and the persons entitled to it
Not only that in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner in this Court it was held that it is not necessary to go into the question whether the petitioner is a protected tenant or whether he has any prima facie interest in the property because they are the matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the arbitrator who has to be appointed under Section 8 of the Act
Now as the arbitrator has already been appointed he will go into the matter as to whether the 1237 petitioner was a protected tenant of the lands or not and if he was the protected tenant to what share in the compensation amount he would be entitled to
Under these circumstances the CRP is dismissed with a direction that the entry made in the Final Record of Tenancies that the petitioner was the protect ed tenant for the lands in question which is spurious as found by both the Revenue Divi sional Officer and the District Revenue Offi cer should be deleted
 The matter was brought to this Court by a special leave application and this Court in Special Leave Petition Civil No 10 of 1975 on or about 30th January
1975 held that since the question whether the petitioner in that case namely Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had been left open by the High Court to be decided by the Arbitrator under section 8 of the Central Act special leave petition was rejected with those observations
Thereafter there was an order appointing arbitrator on 29th of March 1975 under section 81b of the Central Act
Claim petition was filed by the appellant before the arbitrator  Claim petition was also filed by Abdul Khader claiming 60  of compensation as a protected tenant 
There was an award by the arbitrator holding that as this Court had left it open to decide whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant
Despite the objection exercising the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to go into the question of protected tenant the arbitrator held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the appellant claiming as one of the owners of the property filed a statutory appeal to the High Court
In the meantime Abdul Khader filed an application on or about 21st of Octo ber 1984 for adducing additional evidence to mark Kaulnama dated 2nd of December 1950 for the first time and Oubu liatnama dated 2nd December 1950 as exhibits in deciding the protected tenancy rights
The appellant objected to that application but the High Court on 1st April 1985 appointed Advocate Commissioner to record additional evidence
On or about 22nd of April 1985 the appellant filed the objection reserving the right of raising the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to go into the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant in the light of the Act 21 of 1950
Three civil appeals were filed before this Court against the order of the High Court on 15th May 1985
This Court passed the order on 19th August 1985
The said order is important and reads as follows 1238 Special leave are granted
The appeal is heard
Dr Chitale learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court should be directed to consider the issues relating to the jurisdic tion of the arbitrator appointed and function ing under the  195 i to decide whether a person is protected tenant of an agricultural land or not in the light of Sections 99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1950
We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above question
After giving our due consideration to the question we are of the view that the High Court should determine this question
The High Court shall decide the question of juris diction referred to above in light of the submissions to be made by both the parties
Shri Subba Rao learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants should not be permitted to withdraw from the authorities concerned more than 40 per cent of the total compensation awarded in respect of the lands in question pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court
We agree with his submission
We direct that the appellants shall withdraw not more than 40 per cent of the compensation pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court
The remaining 60 per cent shall be disbursed in accordance with the directions to be given by the High Court after hearing all the parties concerned
 The appeals were disposed of accordingly
Other CMPs were filed for clarification of the second part of the order dated 19th August 1985 and this Court on 29th November 1985 in CMPs
Nos 4692 to 4694 of 1985 clarified and ob served that there was no need for further clarification
It was observed that the High Court was at liberty to consider the claims to be made by both the parties and pass any fresh order with regard to the disbursement of the remaining 60 of the compensation
The judgment under appeal was passed on 15th of April 1986
This appeal arises out of the said judgment
In the judgment under appeal which is directed against the award made by the arbitrator formulated the following four issues 1 what is the value of the land 2 who are entitled to the compensation amount 3 whether Abdul Khader is a protected tenant of Sail Gulshan of the area 19 02 guntas excluding the 1239 land of buildings wells etc
and 4 what share is to be apportioned to successors of Sail Nawaz Jung
It has to be borne in mind that in the award the arbitrator after ex haustively discussing the evidence on record held that Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such further held that he was entitled to 60 of the compensation money payable for the acquisition of the land excluding the land of buildings wells etc
In this appeal we are concerned with the question wheth er the High Court was right in upholding the award of the arbitrator so far as it has held in favour of Abdul Khader and his rights to get 60 of the compensation
The High Court dealt with the value of the land
We are not concerned with the challenge to this aspect in this appeal
The High Court further modified a portion of the order in view of the decision of this Court in Bhag Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh  on the question of solati um and interest on the amount awarded
The judgment also dealt with the question as to who were the successors of Nawaz Jung
We are also not concerned with this aspect of the matter inasmuch as the same is the subject matter of another appeal being Civil Appeal No 4406 of 1986
We are concerned in this appeal with the right of Abdul Khader
The High Court discussed 18 documents out of which two are challans and other depositions
Kowlnama executed in favour of Shaik Hussain was not filed
The Kowlnama executed in favour of the son Mohd Abdul Khader on December 3 1950 was filed and was marked as Exhibit C 1
The document recited permitted to utilise garden fruits flowers and mango fruits
The tenant was permitted to raise flower trees at his own expenses
The High Court took into consid eration the judgment in Suit No 131 of 195 1 52 by the tenant
The High Court on consideration of these documents was of the view that these documents showed unequivocally that the tenancy was in favour of Shaik Hussain from 1935
After his death Mohd Abdul Khader was recognised as the tenant
The land was taken possession of under a panchanama dated 12th of September 1963
According to the High Court the documents discussed in the judgment indicated that Shaik Hussain was a tenant from 1935
After his death on July 18 1949 his son Mohd Abdul Khader became a tenant
In this background the Court addressed itself to the question wheth er Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not entitled to 60 of the compensation
No document was filed to show that Abdul Khader was declared by the revenue courts as a pro tected tenant
1240 The High Court was of the view that there was surfeit of evidence prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Act that Shaik Hussain was a tenant of the land
The question was whether on enforcement of the said Act Abdul Khader respondent herein was a protected tenant
The High Court thereafter discussed the facts mentioned hereinbefore about the order of the District Revenue Officer and the orders of this Court referred to hereinbefore
The High Court noticed the position that under the said Andhra Pradesh Act it was for the revenue authorities to order whether a tenant is a protected tenant under section 34 section 37 and section 37A of the said Act
Section 37A was enacted on 12th of March 1956
The High Court was however of the view that it cannot be said that it was for the revenue authorities alone to decide the issue because the arbitrator was ordered to decide the issue by the High Court on 19th August 1974 and by this Court on 30th of January 1975
The High Court also referred to the directions of this Court dated 19th August 1985 mentioned hereinbefore
The High Court was of the view that the arbitrator was to decide that question and the arbitrator was not in error in deciding the issue in the manner it did
The Court reiterated that there was surfeit of evidence to declare that Abdul Khader was a tenant
If he was a tenant the High Court observed
he was a protected tenant under section 34 read with section 37 or under sec tion 37 A of the Andhra Pradesh Act
The High Court on reciting the facts came to the conclusions inter alia a that Abdul Khader because he was a tenant between January 1942 to January 1948 for six years therefore was a pro tected tenant under sub clause ii of clause 1 of section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Act b that Abdul Khader held the land from October 1943 to October 1949 therefore was a protected tenant of Sail Gulshan under sub clause iii of clause 1 of section 34 of Act 21 of 1950
In these circum stances the High Court held that Adbul Khader was entitled to 60 of the compensation paid
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellants being the successor of the owner of the land in question is in appeal before us
Shri Shanker Ghosh learned counsel for the appellant urged that under the said Andhra Pradesh Act it was mandatory under section 99 read with section 102 of the said Act in conjunction with the definition of section 2r of the Act for the revenue authorities to decide wheth er Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not
There being no such finding by the revenue officer on the other hand there being a finding mat Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant by the revenue authorities it was not open to the arbitrator to decide the question of 1241 protected tenancy
The arbitrator therefore exceeded his jurisdiction and the High Court was in error
Shri AK Sen on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contended that the compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning and acquisition must be determined under the Central Act and the arbitrator was the authority to decide that question
The question of Abdul Khader s right to compensation had to be decided in accordance with law
He had claimed rights of a protected tenant
He had sought to establish his rights which must be found within the fourcor ners of the Andhra Pradesh Act along with other documents because under section 404 of the Andhra Pradesh Act the interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant formed 60
The rights of the protected tenants have been defined in the Andhra Pradesh Act and relevant provisions of that Act namely sections 34 37 37A and 40 in conjunction with the definition under section 2r have to be taken into consideration in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case
The two orders of this Court as we have mentioned hereinbefore dated 30th of Janu ary 1975 and 19th of August
1985 reiterated the position that it was for the arbitrator to decide the question and he should decide the question in the light of sections 99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act as set out hereinbefore
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that there was a complete bar for any civil court to go into the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such the arbitrator and the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide this question
For this reliance was placed on Section 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act which lays down that the Act will not apply to lands leased granted alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or the State Govern ment etc
and on Section 99 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with any question which is under the Andhra Pradesh Act required to be settled to be decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar Tribunal or Collector
According to the appellant inasmuch as whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had not to be settled by the Collector or the Tribunal the arbitrator and the High Court were in error in going to that question
We are unable to accept this submission
By the scheme of the Central Act compensation was payable to persons who had interest in the land acquired
Who are the persons who have interest in the land had to be decided in accordance with the law and the evidence
Determination by the revenue authorities and non determination is not conclusive or decisive
It is clear that section 102 of the Andhra 1242 Pradesh Act mentions that after acquisition the Act was not to apply in respect of certain land
Therefore it was submitted by the respondents that section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act
which made the determination by the Tahsildar to be final and debarred other courts from going into the question did not apply in case of compensation payable
In the background of the totality of circumstances as manifest in the different orders it appeared to the arbitrator and the Court that the entry which was made in favour of Abdul Khader as the protected tenant was of doubtful validity
We are of the opinion that the High Court was not in error in so holding
It was the observation of the revenue authori ties that it was spurious
That in any event what was the interest of Abdul Khader had to be determined in determining the question of payment of compensation to him and in so determining the facts and circumstances and the proceedings before the revenue authorities and entries and subsequent deletions had to be taken into consideration by the arbitra tor
The arbitrator has done so
He had jurisdiction to do so
The High Court has so held
This Court by the two orders referred to hereinbefore had also affirmed this position
In that view of the matter we are unable to accept the challenge to the award
Furthermore under section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act the bar was not against the arbitrator but against a civil court
In determining the amount of compensation payable to Abdul Khader under the Central Act his interests in the property had to be determined
In another context the High Court of Andhra Pradesh enunciated the position that it was necessary to determine the interest of the persons claiming compensation
Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Archi Appalareddi and another vs Special Tahsildar land Acquisition Visakhapatnam Municipality and mother 1979 Andhra Weekly Reporter Vol
1 p 101 where the Court observed in the context of the Land Acquisition Act that a tenant was a person inter ested  as defined in clause b of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act
He has a right to object to the acquisition andor the quantum of compensation
The Land Acquisition Officer or the Court as the case may be had to ascertain the value of a claimant s right in the property acquired and compensate him in that behalf
We may mention that in the two orders of this Court dated 30th of January 1975 and 19th of August 1985 referred to here inbefore this Court had left it open to the High Court and to the arbitrator to decide whether he is a protected tenant or not
the arbitrator has decided that question and the High Court found 1243 over wheiming evidence in support of it
In that view of the matter we must uphold that decision however unsatisfactory it might appear that a fruit plucker gets 60 of the compen sation while the owners get only If that is the law let it be
In the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The appellants were contractors for the supply of ballast to PWD
They were detained under section 32 of the 
It was stated in the grounds of detention that on account of business rivalry appellants and their companions attacked the complainant with fire arms and hand grenades with intent to kill him FIR was lodged by the complainant a case was registered against them under section 147 149 307 IPC and section 6 of the Explosives Act and a chargesheet put up against the appellants and since they had applied for bail and if released there was a possibility that they will again start activities causing breach of public order it was necessary to detain them in order to prevent them from so acting
The detention orders were approved by the State Government under section 34 of the Act and the representations made by the appellants having been rejected they were directed to be detained for a period of 12 months
Challenging their detention the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court contending that the alleged assault on the complainant affected only an individual and such a solitary act could not be considered to be an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The High Court dismissing the writ petitions held that the assault was to teach a lesson to the complainant and serve as warning to prospective tenderers who may not dare to submit their tenders and that the impact and reach of the act went beyond the individual and affected the community of contractors who take contracts for executing the public works
Allowing the appeals to this Court 774  HELD Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility
An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be different
778C D A solitary act of omission or commission can be taken into consideration for being subjectively satisfied by the detaining authority to pass an Order of detention if the reach effect and potentiality of the act is such that it disturbs public tranquility by creating terror and panic in the society or a considerable number of the people in a specified locality where the act is alleged to have been committed
It is the degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to public order
779A C In the instant case the alleged act of assault by fire arms is confined to the complainant and not to others
It is an act infringing law and order and the reach and effect of the act is not so extensive as to affect considerable members of the society
In other words this act does not disturb public tranquility nor does it create any terror or panic in the minds of the people of the locality nor does it affect in any manner the even tempo of the life of the community
This criminal act emanates from business rivalry between the detenus and the complainant
Therefore such an act cannot be the basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass an order of detention on the ground that the impugned act purports to affect public order ie the even tempo of the life of the community which is the sole basis for clamping the order of detention
Moreover no injury was caused to the person of the complainant by the appellants nor any damage was caused to the car though hand grenade was alleged to have been thrown on the car
No mark has been caused to the car also
778E H Gulab Mehra vs State of U P  Ors 3 SC 559 applied