JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - In this appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Appellants have challenged the order in the matter of apportionment of compensation between them and Respondent No. 1. 2. 31 acres 600 decimals of land were acquired in Revenue village Bomikhal for planned development of New Capital for purpose of a lake. This acquired area included the lands involved in this appeal measuring A1.260 decimals. Appellants purchased the disputed land from the original owners in 1966, and got it mutated in their names. When Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 91,520/- to the recorded owners (Appellants) Respondent No. 1 claimed that being a bhag tenant, he is a person interested in the land and is also entitled to compensation. 3. Land Acquisition Officer, on hearing both the parties and on the basis of materials placed before him took the view that Respondent No. 1 having been declared as a bhag tenant under the Orissa Land Reforms Act had an interest in the land, and as such was entitled to share in the compensation amount, although u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act the award for compensation was passed in favour of the Appellant Nos. Ita 5 only. He accordingly made a reference to the Court u/s 30 of the Act for determining the extent of interest of the tenant and the proportionate amount of compensation, if any, payable to him and deposited the compensation amount in Court. 4. Learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar decided the case giving rise to the present appeal in the matter of apportionment of the amount of compensation between both the Parties, that is, Appellants on the one hand and Respondent No. 1 on the other. He took into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both parties before him. He found that though Appellants were owners of the land being purchasers from the recorded owner, Respondent No. 1 was continuing in cultivating possession as a bhag tenant since about 30 years and was also declared as such u/s 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act by the Revenue officer, Bhubaneswar. He, therefore, held that Respondent No. 1 has also got a share in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. He, therefore, held that Respondent No. 1 has also got a share in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. As to the quantum in the share of compensation, learned trial Judge relying on Section 13 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and referring to the commentary of Sanjiva Rao named Law of Land Acquisition Compensation, sixth Edition, dealing with. "persons interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, and "enquiry regarding the apportionment" contained in the commentary u/s 11 of the Act at pages 305- 306, held that Appellants are jointly entitled to one-fourth and Respondent No. 1 to three-fourth of the compensation amount. This finding has been assailed in the present appeal. 5. During the hearing of the appeal the factual findings that Appellants at the material time were owners of the disputed land and that Respondent No. 1 was the statutory tenant, that is, bhag tenant under them duly declared by the Revenue Officer, Bhubaneswar u/s 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act have not been seriously challenged. It was also not challenged that at the material time Respondent No. 1 as a bhag tenant was paying Rs. 50/- per year to the Appellants towards the value of Raj bhag representing one fourth interest of the landlord. 6. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that even though Respondent No. 1 has been declared as bhag tenant and as such entitled to the three-fourth of the gross produce from the land as provided u/s 13 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, he is not entitled to three-fourth of the compensation determined on the basis of market value of the land. According to him, as a tenant-Respondent No. 1 can at best be entitled to sixteen times his annual income from the land which works out to Rs. 2,400/- on the basis of three-fourth of the annual gross-produce of the land, since on his own evidence, he was paying Rs. 50/- to the landlord's which would bring his share at Rs. 150/-. Besides, Respondent No. 1 being fairly aged and being a bachelor, on his death, the land would revert to landlord and as such the right of heritability of the disputed land which is conferred by Section 7 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, does not give any better statutory right to Respondent No. 1. Mr. 150/-. Besides, Respondent No. 1 being fairly aged and being a bachelor, on his death, the land would revert to landlord and as such the right of heritability of the disputed land which is conferred by Section 7 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, does not give any better statutory right to Respondent No. 1. Mr. Panigrahi's further contention is that if the landlord-Appellants had sold away the land in question prior to the acquisition to any private person, the Respondent could not have claimed any interest in the sale proceeds and his only claim would have been continuance of tenancy right of Respondent No. 1 being lost, he is entitled to the value of such tenancy right which cannot be held to be three-fourth of the total compensation. 7. Mr. G.C. Jena, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has contended, while supporting the finding of the Subordinate Judge, that apportionment of compensation has been correctly made on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. It is further contended that Respondent No. 1 having been declared as statutory tenant by the appropriate authority, and his right being heritable u/s 7 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and as such, his heirs from generation to generation being entitled to cultivate the land and to pay one-fourth of the gross produce of the land to the owners, Appellants as land owners would not be entitled to more than sixteen times of their one-fourth share of the annual gross produce calculated on the basis of the less of the value of the quantum of interest by the reason of acquisition. It is alternatively argued that u/s 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act; a tenant acquiring right of occupancy is liable to pay compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs. 800/- per standard acre and on this basis, Appellants would be entitled only to Rs. 268/- per acre, or Rs. 335/- for the disputed land. 8. On a careful study of the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We are of the view that the principle of apportionment of compensation between the parties would depend upon the value of the nature of interest which either party has lost by reason of the acquisition of the land. 9. 8. On a careful study of the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We are of the view that the principle of apportionment of compensation between the parties would depend upon the value of the nature of interest which either party has lost by reason of the acquisition of the land. 9. Where landlord is the owner of the land he has the right to transfer. Bhag tenant has no right to transfer his interest. Heritability is same for both. Tenant is to invest for seed, fertiliser, labour and other ancillary expenses for harvesting balance of which is his net income. This is normally 50 per cent of the gross yield in average which is to be borne by the tenant. Thus out of the balance 50 per cent landlord gets half, and tenant keeps the other half. Landlord is to pay land revenue and case etc. which are statutory incidents attached to land. There is no further deduction from the share of the tenant. In the absence of any other material in this case it can be held that about 10 per cent of annual yield is spent towards the statutory obligation. Keeping these essential features of rights and obligations of the landlord and statutory tenant, in the absence of further details the. Court is inclined to hold in this case that landlords are entitled to forty per, cent of the total compensation and bhag tenant is entitled to balance sixty per cent. 10. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances, of the case, there would be no order as to costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Appeal partly allowed Final Result : Allowed