HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.M.P.No.2106 of 2002 and A.S.No.1944 of 2001, A.S.M.P.No.2637 of 2002 and A.S.No.1945 of 2001, A.S.M.P.No.2638 of 2002 and A.S.No.1946 of 2001, and A.S.M.P.No.2105 of 2002 and A.S.No.1947 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These appeals are filed against the orders passed in O.P.Nos.18, 20, 21 and 24 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, which were disposed of by a common order dated 12-03-2001, along with other O.Ps. The appellants herein are the second claimants in the respective O.Ps. Since all the appeals arose out of the common order and the issue is also one and the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals, are as follows: An extent of Ac.4-41 cents in R.S.Nos.194, 195 and 196 of Vadali village of Mudinepalli Mandal, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Gas/Oil producer well, by issuing the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.1-01 cents pertains O.P.No.18 of 1997, Ac.0-65 cents pertains to O.P.No.20 of 1997, Ac.0-29 cents pertains to O.P.No.21 of 1997 and Ac.0-55 cents pertains to O.P.No.24 of 1997. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 20-06-1995 in Award No.2 of 1995 fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.28,000/- per acre. However, as there was a dispute between the respective claimants in the respective O.Ps. with regard to the entitlement to receive the market value, the matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 30(2) of the Act for deciding the entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation. Accordingly, the present O.Ps along with O.P.Nos.14, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of 1997 were taken up together by the Reference Court. 3. The first claimant-temple filed written statement stating that the acquired lands are temple lands which they got from the Nizams of Hyderabad in the year 1760 for the support of the temple under the Title Deed Nos.1203 and 1206 and since there was a dispute by the occupants with regard to their leasehold rights over the properties, some of the tenants filed a writ petition and the same was allowed and on appeal in W.A.No.628 of 1985, the High Court through the order dated 03-04-1985 allowed the appeal holding that the lands are held by the temple. 4. The second claimants in all the respective O.Ps filed respective claim statements claiming that they are the tenants of the acquired lands since long time and as such, they are entitled for 60% of the compensation and the first claimant-temple is entitled to the remaining 40% of the compensation. 5. The Reference Court, during the course of trial, clubbed all the O.Ps and conducted joint trial by recording the evidence in O.P.No.14 of 1997. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW-1 and the third claimant in O.P.No.14 of 1997 was examined as PW-2 and the second claimant in O.P.No.20 of 1997 was examined as PW-3, and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were got marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, allowed the claim of the first claimant in all the petitions and disallowed the claim of the other claimants, to get any share in the compensation amount belonging to the first claimant, and held that the first claimant alone is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount in all the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed as stated above. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that in view of the order of this Court, dated 03-04-1985 passed in W.A.No.628 of 1985, which was marked as Ex.A-1, the appellants have a right of permanent occupancy in the lands, which is heritable and transferable by sale, gift or otherwise, and therefore, they are entitled to receive 60% of the compensation for the lands acquired. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA v. A. AJIT SINGH [1]. 8. The learned counsel further contended that PW-2 categorically asserted that her husband was cultivating the acquired lands during his lifetime and prior to that, her father-in-law and brother- in-law were cultivating the land and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the apportionment of the compensation. 9. The learned counsel further contended that PW-1 himself admitted that by the date of acquisition, the appellants are in possession of the land as tenants from whom the possession was taken by ONGC by paying the lease amount for those lands; and that the xerox copy of the receipt was filed along with the notification, particulars of the lands acquired and the notice under Section 9(3) of the Act etc. in A.S.M.P.Nos.2106, 2637, 2638 and 2105 of 2002 to be received as additional evidence in these appeals, and in view of the same, the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation and the Reference Court is not justified in negativing their claim. 10. The learned Government Pleader, while supporting the impugned orders, contended that when the appellants failed to establish any worthy evidence in support of their claim before the Reference Court, they are not entitled to receive any compensation, and the Reference Court rightly rejected their claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned orders passed by the Reference Court are sustainable? 12. Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘Inams Abolition Act’) deals with the conversion of Inams lands in a Jamindari village into Ryotwari lands. Section 4(2)(a) envisages that if such a land is held by any institution on the date of commencement of this Act, such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Whereas as per sub-section (b), if the land is held by an inamdar other than the institution on the date of commencement of the Act, and is in his actual occupation on the said date, the tenant is entitled to a ryotwari patta for 2/3rd share of the land and the inamdar is entitled to a ryotwari patta for the remaining 1/3rd share of the land. Sub-section (c) deals with the apportionment of the land between the inamdar and the tenant, who is declared to be in occupation of the land by the date of commencement of the Act, at the same ratio as fixed in sub-section (b). 13. There is no other provision under the Inams Abolition Act about the apportionment of the land between the inamdar and the tenant. It is the main contention of the appellants that they have a right of permanent occupation and the said right is heritable if the land is in occupation of the tenant by the date of the Act coming into force i.e., on 07-01-1948 and this Court also in W.A.No.628 of 1985 held that as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.43 of 1983 and also under the Inams Abolition Act, the tenants have permanent heritable occupancy rights by sale, gift or otherwise, and they are entitled to the benefit under Section 8 of the Act. 14. However, we do not see any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, for the simple reason that the appellants failed to establish any worthy evidence showing that they or their ancestors were in possession of the lands as on 07-01-1948 or entitled to be declared as such or were reinstated recognizing their rights under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act after the Act came into force. Neither any adangals were filed to establish that they were recognized as permanent tenants under the Inams Abolition Act nor any proceedings were produced to prove that they were in occupation of the land on the relevant date. 15. PW-2, who is the wife of the claimant in O.P.No.14 of 1997, which is not the subject matter of these appeals, stated that herself and her children were added as L.Rs and her husband was cultivating the land and prior to him, her father-in-law and brother-in- law were cultivating the land and on acquisition of the land, they are entitled to 60% of the compensation and the temple is entitled to the remaining 40%. Similarly PW-3, who is claimant No.2 in O.P.No.20 of 1997, stated that his father was the cultivating tenant of the acquired lands and he gave 0-65 cents of property to her towards pasupukumkuma and they are entitled to 60% of the compensation amount from out of the total compensation awarded, and the first claimant is entitled for the remaining compensation. 16. But the said evidence of PW-2 is of no consequence or useful to establish the claim of the appellants herein. Except the above statement, there is no other evidence adduced by the appellants to prove that they are in occupation of the land as on the date of the Inams Abolition Act came into force and their rights are protected under the provisions thereof. 17. Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 deals with the lease of agricultural lands, which reads as follows: “82. Lease of Agricultural Lands:--(1) Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stand cancelled. (2) In respect of leases of agricultural lands held by landless poor person for not less than six years continuously, such person shall have the right to purchase such lands for a consideration of seventy five per centum of the prevailing market value of similarly situated lands at the time of purchase and such consideration shall be paid in four equal instalments in the manner prescribed. Such sale may be effected otherwise than by tender-cum-public auction: Provided that if such small and marginal farmers who are not able to purchase the land will continue as tenants provided, if they agree to pay at least two third of the market rent for similarly placed lands as lease amount. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section "landless poor person" means a person whose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not exceed 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other than from such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential property exceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered as landless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments property. Explanation II:-- For the purpose of this sub-section, small and marginal farmer means a person who being a lessee is holding lands in excess of acres 0.25 cents of wet land or acres 0.50 cents of dry land over and above the ceiling limits of acres 2.50 wet or acres 5.00 dry land respectively they may be allowed to continue in lease subject to payment of 2/3rd of prevailing market rent and excess land held if any more than the above limits shall be put in public auction. (3) The authority to sanction the lease or licence in respect of any property or any right or interest thereon belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the manner in which and the period for which such lease or licence shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Every lease or licence of any immovable property, other than the Agricultural land belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force subject to the rules as may be prescribed under sub-section (3).” The above provision has been upheld by this Court and Supreme Court in several decisions. 18. In the above decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, 99 years lease was granted in favour of the tenants and the same was the subject matter of the appeal and in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the apportionment of compensation in the ratio of 60% and 40% to the tenant and the landlord respectively would be proper. However, in the present case, the appellants, who claim to be the in occupation of the land and the permanent tenants under the Inams Abolition Act, failed to establish their permanent tenancy. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. It is incumbent upon the appellants to establish that they are entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 82. In the absence of any worthy evidence adduced by the appellants in support of their claim, the Reference Court was right in disallowing their claim holding that they are not entitled to the compensation. Furthermore mere payment of crop lease by ONGC and taking possession of the property through its letter dated 13-07-1991, which was filed to be received as additional evidence, will not prove the permanent tenancy. 20. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that the Reference Court rightly allowed the claim of the first claimant and disallowed the claim of the other claimants, who are the appellants herein, and the impugned orders do not suffer any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 21. From the conspectus discussion and the foregoing reasons, though the appellants have filed number of documents to receive as additional evidence, the documents in Ref.No.B.113/89, dated 05-02-1990 and Ref.No.13/170/90/LAO, dated 21-12-1990 are only relevant for these appeals and they are hereby marked as Exs.A- 4 and A-5. A.S.M.P.Nos.2106, 2637, 2638 and 2105 of 2002 are, accordingly, ordered. 22. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date:20-10-2011 YCR Appendix of Evidence For claimants: For Referring Officer: PW-1: Patibandla Rajeswara Rao None PW-2: Gorrela Annapoorna PW-3: Parasa Alivelu Documents marked For Claimants: Ex.A-1/3-4-85: Order of High Court of A.P. Ex.A-2/--- : Inam Fair Register Ex.A-3/9-9-98: writ petition No.13439/98 Ex.A-4/05-02-1990: Proceedings in Ref.:B113/89 of the LAO Ex.A-5/ 21-12-1990: Proceedings in Ref.No.13/170/90/LAO [1] (1997) 6 SCC 50