Perpetual leasehold rights do not equate to absolute ownership, necessitating apportionment of acquisition compensation with the lessor.

The subject matter is a 2325.24 sq. meter parcel of land known as "Vivek Cinema" at Patel Road, Delhi

The property was originally leased by the Government of India via a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 31.03.1960 for a term of 99 years under the rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons

In 2003, the land was acquired for the Delhi Metro Rail network

The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed Award No. 14/DC(W)/04-05, assessing compensation at ₹11,53,74,028/- and apportioning it in a ratio of 80% to the Appellants (lessees) and 20% to Respondent No. 2 (Union of India/L&DO as lessor)

The Appellants challenged this before the Reference Court, claiming 100% of the compensation based on their status as perpetual lessees and Clause I(xii) of the Lease Deed.

The Reference Court upheld the 80:20 apportionment

The Appellants then approached the High Court.

1. Whether a perpetual lessee under a Government Grant is entitled to the entirety of the compensation upon acquisition, or if the lessor retains a right to a share based on reversionary title

2. Whether Clause I(xii) of the Lease Deed, interpreted through Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, mandates that the entire compensation be paid only to the lessee

3. Whether the failure of the Union of India to file a formal claim before the Collector under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act disentitles it from receiving a share in the compensation

a lease, regardless of its duration or description as "perpetual," is a transfer of the right to enjoy property, while ownership remains with the lessor

Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, which stipulates that government grants take effect according to their "tenor" notwithstanding any contrary law

The Court followed the precedent in Inder Parshad v. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 239, establishing that compensation for acquired leasehold land must be divided between the lessor and lessee in proportion to their respective interests

Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745 to reiterate that a lessee is not an owner

Paru Kutty Amma v. Velu Nair (1987) to hold that procedural failure to file a claim before the Collector does not preclude a party from establishing title before the Reference Court

The Court rejected the Appellants' contention that they were "virtual owners." It reasoned that the Lease Deed imposed significant restrictions—including ground rent, transfer approvals, and re-entry rights—which are inconsistent with absolute ownership

Regarding the Government Grants Act, the Court held that "tenor" refers to the overall import of the grant; since the grant was a 99-year lease, it did not intend to confer ownership

The Court scrutinized Clause I(xii) and found that while it recognized the lessee’s right to compensation, it did not explicitly grant the entirety of the compensation to the lessee nor did it strip the Government of its reversionary share

On the procedural issue, the Court characterized proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act as "investigative and inquisitorial," concluding that the Court must distribute compensation based on true legal rights rather than mere participation in initial stages

It held that the Union of India, as the owner of the reversionary interest, is legally entitled to a share of the compensation regardless of the perpetual nature of the lease or the lack of a formal initial claim

The 80:20 apportionment ratio in favor of the lessees and lessor respectively was maintained as just and reasonable