GALIB BIN AWAZ versus MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

GALIB BIN AWAZ versus MOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

The arbitrator under the Central Act has jurisdiction to ascertain whether the respondent is a protected tenant for purposes of compensation, as the statutory bar under Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act applies only to civil courts and not to arbitrators. Section 102 makes the Act inapplicable to land acquired by the Central Government. The High Court rightly relied on evidence finding the respondent to be a protected tenant, entitling him to sixty per cent of the compensation.

Parties
Appellant: GAUB BIN AW AZ; Respondent: MOHD. ABDUL KHADER; Respondent: ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated 15.4.1986
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Compensation Determination, Protected Tenancy, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
Property Law Land Acquisition Tenancy Law Compensation Determination Protected Tenancy Jurisdiction of Arbitrator

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GAUB BIN AW AZ

Appellant

MOHD. ABDUL KHADER

Respondent

ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated 15.4.1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 has jurisdiction to determine if a claimant is a protected tenant for compensation purposes
  2. 2 Whether revenue authorities' determination under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is final and binding on the arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator under the Central Act has jurisdiction to ascertain whether the respondent is a protected tenant for purposes of compensation, as the statutory bar under Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act applies only to civil courts and not to arbitrators. Section 102 makes the Act inapplicable to land acquired by the Central Government. The High Court rightly relied on evidence finding the respondent to be a protected tenant, entitling him to sixty per cent of the compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Challenge to the award rejected.
  • Respondent declared a protected tenant and entitled to sixty per cent of compensation.