BOYA BUCHANNA Vs. A MOHAN GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings. The 3rd respondent an O.P. No. 520 of 1976 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar which is a reference under section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act is the appellant.

(2.) In this appeal we are concerned with Survey No. 193 of Yaparla village. In respect of this land the 2nd respondent who is a legal representative of the 1st respondent inamdar claimed the entire compensation relating to this survey number. The 3rd respondent contested the claim claiming to be the illatem.' son-in-law of one Pullaiah v/ho is the protected tenant in respect of his survey number.

(3.) The trial Court accepted the contention that the 3rd respondent is admittedly the son-in-law of late Pullaiah and Exhibit B-5 shows that Pullaiah is the protected tenant tenant and consequently held that he is entitled to share the compensation with the inamdar. The trial Court, on the strength of the evidence of R W. 2 read with R.W. 6 held that the tenant certificate Exhibit B-5 is true and not a spurious document and consequently the claim of No. 3 is justified. On appeal by the inamdar, the appellate Court framed an issue whether Boyana Butchanna is the protected tenant and whether he is entitled to 60% of the compensation amount and found that Boyanna Butchanna is not a protected tenant and consequently allowed the appeal.