UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ORS.versusA. AJIT SINGH S/O. S. CHET SINGH R/O. NO. 19, FAIZ BAZAR, DARYAGANJ, DELHI-6

           UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,                                  A
        MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT
               OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
                              v.
              A. AJIT SINGH S/0. S. CHET SINGH
        R/0. NO. 19, FAIZ BAZAR, DARYAGANJ, DELHl-6                           B

                             APRIL 29, 1997

           [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
                     G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
                                                                              c
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

      Acquisition of land given on lease by Government-Compensa-
tion-Apportionment of-Land Acquisition Officer made award on 6.6.1967
awarding compensation @ Rs. 4, 000 per bigha-Reference Court enhanced         D
compensation to R.s. 17,000 per bigha by its order dated 2.11.1973-High
Court further enhanced compensation to R.s. 28,387 per bigha affirming the
apportionment of 75% to tenant and 25% to landlord-Held, determination
of market value not vitiated by any e"or of principle-Claimants entitled to
solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on enhanced compensation from date
of taking possession till date of deposit-Apportionment of compensation in    E
the ratio of 60% to tenant and 40% to landlord.

      Mangat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1996) 8 SCC 664;
bider Parshad v. Union of India & Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 239 and Col. Sir
Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. Etc., [1994) 4 SCC
523, referred to.
                                                                              F •

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3695 of
1997 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order 18.8.86 of the Delhi High Court in           G
R.F.A. No. 87 of 1974.

     V.C. Mahajan, Sushma Suri, Shashi Kiran and D.S. Mehra for the
Appellants.

      N. Ganpathy for the Respondent.                                         H
                                1117
,,

         1118                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (1997) 3 S.C.R.

     A          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

                Substitution allowed.

                Leave granted.

     B        This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Delhi
         High Court, made on 18.8.1996, in RFA No. 87 of 1974.

               The undisputed facts are that on January 25, 1949, the respondent
         was granted a lease of the Government land for 30 years with a right to
         further renewal from time to time, upto a maximum period of 99 years.
     C Since the land was required for acquisition, notice was issued on July 23,
         1960 terminating the tenancy of the respondent. The respondent filed an
         appeal before the Additional District Judge who held that the lease still
       . subsisted and, therefore, the respondent could not be evicted. Notification
         under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act')
     D was published on February 17, 1967 acquiring the land for planned
         development of the City of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his
         award on June 6, 1967 determining the compensation @ Rs. 4, 000 per
         bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge, by his award and
         decree dated 2.11.1973 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,000 per bigha;
     E apportionment was also effected. On appeal by the State and by the
         claimant also, the High Court while affirming the apportionment of 75%
         to the tenant and 25% to the landlord, has enhanced the compensation to
         Rs. 28,387 per bigha. The High Court also applied the provisions of
         Amendment Act 68/84 and awarded the enhanced solatium, interest and
         additional amount. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
     F
               The High Court in the judgment has noted that the lands are situated
         in the developed area and are very near to the developed localities belong-
         ing to the private parties and Government. Therefore, it possesses the
         potential value for use for building purposes. Accordingly, it has deter-
         mined the compensation @ Rs. 28,387 per bigha. We think that the
     G   determination of the market value on the basis of the above consideration
         is not vitiated by any error of principle.

               The next question that arises for consideration i~ : whether the
          respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984? In
     H    view of the fact that the award of the reference Court is of November 2,
                        U.O.I. v. A. AJIT SINGH                       1119

1973, the Amendment Act would apply and, therefore, the claimants arc         A
entitled to the solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced
compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit in the
Court.

      The ncht question is : to what proportion the landlord and the tenant
are entitled to vis-a-vis the compensation? Though the appellant had B
terminated the tenancy, on appeal, it was restored. Thereafter, they
remained in possession as tenant. The appellant initiated the acquisition
under the Land Acquisition Act, though the covenant in the lease deed
provided the right of dispossession and for taking possession for public
purpose. In view of the fact that the order become final and the possession C
was not taken, pursuant to the termination of the tenancy, and since the
acquisition was initiated under the Act, the respondent is entitled· i.o the
payment of the compensation. The right of tenancy is a right under'Which
a tenant is entitled to enjoy the possessory title and enjoyment of the leased
land subject to covenants relating to ejection after due determination of D
tenancy. It is seen that the lease was granted in 1949 and it was terminated
in 1960 and the acquisition was initiated in 1967 on which date he con-
tinued to be in possession of the property; therefore, this Court has to
consider the apportionment of the compensation on that basis. The judg-
ment in Mangat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 664
relates to the commercial premises which was acquired by the Government E
and the apportionment of the compensation was made at 75% and 25% to
the tenant and the landlord respectively. It was challenged by the landlord
for full payment. In that perspective, this Court upheld the grant of the
apportionment at 75% and 25% to the tenant and the landlord respectively.
                                                                              F
      The case of Inder Parshad v. Union of India & Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 239
relates to the acquisition of the nazul land in respect of which lease was
granted for 99 years to the tenant. On reference under Section 30, the
reference Court had apportioned the compensation @ 2/3rd and 1/3rd to
tenant and landlord respectively. That order was modified on appeal by
the High Court at 75% and 25% respectively. The State did not file any        G
appeal; the tenant claimed the entire compensation in the appeal. This
Court upheld the determination at 75% and 25% between the tenant and
the landlord respectively.

      In Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans !lahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors.      H ·
    1120                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Etc., (1994] 4 SCC 523 since under the Tenancy Act, the tenant is entitled
  to the entire land, this Court held that the tenant is entitled to the total
  compensation and the landlord is not entitled to any compensation. In view
  of the fact that the appellant is challenging the apportionment, we think
  that 60% of the compensation to the tenant would be justified. The Court
B is required to take into consideration relevant factors, viz., the duration of
  the lease, the nature of the right to enjoyment of the lease-hold interest
  and the improvements the tenant made on the land etc. It is equally settled
  law that if the Government is the owner of the land, before initiating the
  acquisition, it is entitled to terminate the lease and take possession of the
  lands in terms of the lease. Necessarily, in the above case tenant cannot
C have any right to compensation as he is bound by the terms of the lease.
  In a case where the Government in spite of the covenant contained in the
  sale deed, chooses to acquire the land, necessarily the tenancy right of a
  tenant is required to be assessed and the compensation has to be awarded
  suitably. In view of the fact that the lease is for 99 years and the part of
  the lease has been enjoyed for a period of 18 years, we think that the
D apportionment of the compensation in the ratio of 60% to the tenant and
  40% to the landlord would be reasonable ratio and payment should ac-
  cordingly be made.

          The appeals are accordingly allowed to the above extent, but, in the
E   circumstances, without costs.

    R.P.                                                     Appeals allowed.