Miscellaneous Petition No. 365 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

40.Sriram Lodh (Died), Rep by his LR respondent No 41. 41. Ramkishan Lodh (died), Per LR respondent No 42. 42.Ramakumari,W/o Late Ramkishan Lodh, Aged major, r/o Usirikayalapalli Village. Singareni Mandal, Khammam District.

43. Barmavath Kali (Died), Rep. by LR respondent No tl4. 44. Sakru, S/o not known to the petitioners, Aged rnajor, rf o Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Manda[, Khammam District.

45.Jagan Lodh (Died), Rep. by his LR respondent No 46 to 54. 46. Indira Lodh, W/o Bindha Charan Lodh r/o Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District.

47.Bistam Lodh (Died), Rep. by his LR RespondentNo 48. 4S.Shankar Lal, S/ o latc Bisram Lodh, Aged maior, r/ o Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District.

49. Ganesh Lodh (Died), Rcp. by his LR respondent No 50. 50. Binda Charan Lodh, S/o late Canesh Lodh, aged major, r f o Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Marrdal, Khammam District.

51. Ramshankar (died), Rep. Lry his [-R respondent No 52. 52. Sudeer Pasi, S/o late Ranrshankar, aged major,r/o Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Kham mam District.

53. Kishan Lal Lotth (Dic'ct), Rcp. by his LR respondent No 54. 54. Dinesh Kumar l-oclh, S/o late Kishan Lal Lodh, aged major. r/o Usirikayalapalli Village, Sin ga reni Ma nrla l, Kha m mam District.

55. Tahsidar, Singareni Kharnmam District. 56. Authorized Officer, [-arrcl Reforms Collectorate, Khammam. ...Respondents/ Respondents. Petition Unclc.r Set:tiotr 24 of the C.l'].C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affitlavit filt'rl tl.rerewith, the High Court may be pleasecl to withdraw LAOI' No. I o1 2005 frorl the file of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transt('r the samc to the court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam or any otht'r (-ivil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance ra,ith law. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition unrler Sct tiorr l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances statetl irr the affidavit filecl in support oi tlre Petition, the High Court may be pleasecl tg stay the proceetlings in LAOI' No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Agent tcr Government, Khammam. Counsel for the Petitioncrs: Sri Ha ri Sreeclhar. Counsel for thc Responr{cuts:Sri R.R. Kalvan. The Court matle the follow'irrg: OITDER 1l I i l i I I I TIIE IIOilOI'RABLE SUT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TR.C.[.P. f,o.365 of 2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is frled by the petitioners seeking tralsfer of O.P.No.l of 2OO5 from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Kharnmam or any other Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9, 11 to13and27.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the pctitioners herein is that O.P.No.l of 2OO5 pending on the f e of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 3O of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act') made by t].e 1st respondent. The petitioner No.S is the deponent herein and he is t]1e son of petitioner No.7, The petitioner No.7 and petitioners 9 to 12 are siblings and the children of petitioner No.7. Similarly, petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No.4 is the wife and petilioners 5 and 6 are tJle sons 2 resPondent-special Le of Singareni Collieries C< of petitioner No.3. ( *arly the deceased Petitrcner Nos.l, 3 a,,d 7 are *. r"*.o,' o*t,." a,,d possessors of the Land in sy.No.244 and 24s u,tt"' Ac' 184' I1 guntas sifuated at Usirikaya.lapalli rrr*ottt"'*g le, Singareni Mandaj, Kho,nmar:c District arld each one of them having equal I/3d share. The said land was acquAed by t}le (L4 lpr & Ra ways, *l"t long wau of JK-S Ir.h"J' under section a (r) uotin",r,^- ;_-*:"^" decraration ,,a". s."t,.TT 1':: No.z /96-92o",., ,o.0,'o' ""' claims made ,., .."o"'' sy.No.244 & 245 ofusir: section 3o of the o", *"tu"""oalli senior civir Judge,s numbered as O.p.No.44 r retumed by the said ""u,.," agency area and retumed covemq,ent, ;";;:,;.- 4. It is the further con petitioners rhat in ,n" l,t_],ll^l :t:'"',,"o Deputy collector ' for depillaring operations & r-ompany Ltd., dated 2o.oe.rees and 6 of the Act followed by Award However' in view of the rival Ac'86' I I SUntas of land in village' a reference under t"" by ths 1st respondent to the 't at Kothagudem and the same was and the said reference was I on the ground that the village is arr " counser ror the ongrnal reference the names of :.:;:::il "our" '"' I i I I I I ' : I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,l 3 petitioners I , 3 and 7 who are the origina.l pattedars, the names of respondent Nos. 2, 26, 30, 29, 6, S,25 and the husband of respondent No.25 were only there. However, as petitioner No.l died, his son petitioner No.2 was brought on record as his legal representative. Similarly petitioners 4 to 6 were brought on record as L.Rs of deceased petitioner No.3, the deponent and petitioners 9 to 12 were brought on record as L.Rs of deceased petitioner No.7. The respondents 27 and 28 were brought on record as the L.Rs of deceased respondent No.26. The respondent No.29 died and his wife was Lrrought on record without giving any separate number. The respondent No.5 died and her son u/as brought on record as her L.R, without giving separate number. The name of husbald of respondent No.25 was deleted without arry reason in the subsequent proceedings and all other respondents were impleaded on the basis of implead petitions filed by them decades after t]le reference, without issuing notice to ttre contesting respondents and contraqr to t}re law laid down by t}re Hon'ble Supreme Court principles underlying in Order 1 Rule 1O of Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the proceedings are conducted as administraLive proceeding contrary to the procedure and parties are 4 impleaded as claimants contrary to law and it is not known to t1le petitioners as on the date how many persons were impleaded. Further as the Agent to Government is also discharging the functions of District Collector, tie matters are pending for t-he past several decades and no procedure is followed under the land Acquisition Act. As the reference is of the year 2OO5, prayed this Court to transfer the said O.P. to t]:e civil Court at Khammam.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed t]:e petition stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matters pertaining to agency area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initiatly, the reference was thougfr sent to tl1e civil Court, the Civil Court returned the frle on t]le ground of jurisdiction as Usirikayalapalli is an agency area, the matter has to be heard by the Government to Agent. He further submitted that instead of transferring the matter to the civil Court, this Court can direct the Agent to Government to dispose of tJre matters at the earliest and relied on the judgment of t.lis Court in S.A.No.7S1 of 2OO2.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the main contention of 5 learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reference was made by the L,and Acquisition Ofiicer and the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notification are waiting for compensation for the last 2O years ald tJle Agent to Government is unable to handle the matter. He is not following the procedure and impleading tlle respondents. The judgr"ent of the Division Bench in Jalagam Sttanoa Reo Vs Stete of Ardhra Pradeshl, relied on by the petitioners, it was observed tI.at the High Court is having power to transfer the case pertaining to agency area to the civil Court and the civil Court has to follow the procedure that has to be followed by t1.e Agent to Gpvernment. In para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed as under : "ln rriew of t}Ie above discussion we are clearly of the view that the Agency Court coastituted under the Schedulcd Districts Act and tlre Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules framcd thcreunder is a Court subordinate to the High Court .rnd the high Court has power under s.24 C.P.C. to transfer rhc suit pending in such Agency Court either to an other Agencv Court or to a Civil Court. However, on such transfer the said suit would have to be tried in accordance q.ith the sanc law ald procedure as would heve been applicable to that suit if it werE to continue before the Agency Coun." 7 In view of tJle observations made in the above judgment, leamed counsel for the petitioners requested tlis Court to ' teza etn 1ap1 s2 I 6 transfer O.P.No.1 of 2OO5 from the ftle of Agent to Govemment, Kharnmam to any civil Court at Khammarn.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for tJ-e respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2 wherein tl.is Court set aside the judgrnent passed by tl.e Civil Court stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction. In para I 1 of the said judgBent it was observed as under : "Witlout going into the merits of the case, as the place at which suit transaction alleged to have taken place comes under Scheduled Area, it can be construed that the Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, where the transaction took pl"ace in agency schedule area, as such, the judgment arrd decree of the first appellate Court Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.O8.2OO1 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2OOO conftrming the judpent and decr€e dated 27 .O|.2OOO passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judgc at Kothagudem irl O.S.No.518 of 1996 are hereby decla-red as null :rnd void. As per the ratio formulated in NagarJuan Graneena Bank's case (supra), it is clear that the persons, who ztrc having decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the Civil Courts, may lay their claim before the Agency Courts- In the €rent of such claims being laid before the Agency Courts tiey shall be decided by the Agency Courts unir luenced by any judgnent, decree or order passed by the civil Courts. In view of the said proposition, liberty is given to the parties herein to aPProach the appropriate Agency Court in accordance with law. [n view o[ the principle laid down in the above said decision and as the trial Court as well as hrst appellate court bcing civil courts has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it is necdless to deal urith other substantial questions of law raised under ground No.9 ofaemorandum of second appeal-"

9. However, it is an admitted fact that the matters pertaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Govemmp!.Cnas to decide the civil cases. In the i / 7 present case also originafly, reference was made to the Civil Court and ttte Senior Civil Judge returned the frle to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jurisdiction that Usirikayalapalli Village comes under agency area. The matter is of tJ:e year 2OO5 and till today, there is no progress in tJre said O. P Further, tl1e record shows that t]le Agent to Govemment without following tJre procedure allowing the implead petitions. Implead petitions in References cannot be allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthavalli of Sha rrqdh.ti Dlsan Yakf, S-J.Syed Zakrudeen and auother Vs Syed Zln&sha aad Othersz, wherein in para 12 it was held as under : "Th(: reference was made only in respect of the amount of compensation. No r€ference has been made in regard to the right of persons to whom it was payable or aPportionment of compensation amongst the persoDs interested- The claim of the frrst respondent has been noticed by us. He has laid his cliirn on the title of the property. He has prayed for proper and cffective implementation of tl:e decree passed by a ciYil Court. He altowed mismanagement of the wald propert]' by the lirst appellant."

10. Generally, cases cannot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of ttre bar in jurisdict.ion, whereas in ttre judgment in Jalagaa Sitarama Rao's c:rse, in para 22 it was observed as under: ,2 (2OO9) l2 Supreme Court Cases 280 I 1 I l ,l .. I t I i I !-- 8 "22. lt was also argued that under the Act the Agency Courts indisposing of suits, appezls or other proceediags of a civil nature have to follow the procedure laid down under ttre Agency Rutes and not the Civil P. C. and since S. 24, C. P. C. is not made applicable to Agency Couns expressly under the Rules, the transfer of such suits cannot be made by the high Court. It must be pointed out that this contention ignores the basic fact that the Scheduled Districts Act and the Agency Rules made thereunder are intended to govern the proceedings in suits, appeals or other proceediags pending before the Agency Courts and do not enlarge or restrict the power of the High Court. Agency Court is a crEature of a statute artd the power to tralsfer a suit is vested in the high Court by an independent enactment. Any procedure laid down in the Agency Rules can only govern tlre Courts constituted thereunder and not limit the power of the high Court vested in it under a dillerent enactment. For the salne reason the contention of the learned Government pleader tirat certain provisions of the Civil P- C. not having been made applicable to rie proceedings before the Agency Courts the high courr is precluded frcm transferring tie suit from one Agency Court to another except in accordance with R. 12 of the Agency rules camot be accepted. Further S. 12 (2) lays down that even if a suit were transferred from the Agency Court to Civil Court, the same procedure as was required to be followed by a! Agency Court is to be followed by the transferee Court in disposing of the suit or othcr proceeding transferred to it. Heace that fact also cannot bc a valid for holding that the proceeding in an Agency consid€ration Court calnot be transferred by the high Court or ro a Civil Court."

11. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before ttre Agent to Government and reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2O05 and the acquisition is of tJ e year 1995. The petitioners are senior citizens and old aged and that tle Agent to Government is not following the procedure and not disposing of the matter during the last twenty years, considering the extreme circumstances of this case, as it is a L.A.O-P., the same is transferred to ttre r t' 1 9 competent Civil Court at Khanmem. The competent Civil Court at Khammam has to dispose of tlle matter at the earliest by following the procedure that has to be followed by the Agent to Government as observed in Jdagaa Eitarama Rro's case, in para 24-

12. With the above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and O.P.No.1 of 2OO5 is Eansferred from the frle of Agent to Government, Khammam to the competent Civil Court at Khammnrn. The Agent to Government is hereby dkected to transmit the entAe case file /a relating to O.P.No.1 of 2OO5 after duly indexed, within period of One (l ) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, under intimation to t]1e other side. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed- I ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA UEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^l TION OFFICER 1i o, T . fhe learnecl r\gt'trt to Covcrnntettt. Khammam 1. 2. Thr'Prirrcipal District f uclge, KhammaT.----_- 3. One CC to'Sri []ari Sret'r.lhar, Aclvocate [OPUC] 4. One'CC to Sri Il.R.Kalvar.r, Advocate [OPUC] 5. I-n'o C-D Copics. JCK/gh w FIICI] ( OUR I DATED:I2/01/2025 ORDER I'RCMI'No 365 of 2023 Allowing thc I r.C.M. [). withoutcosts. b 0 rlx^ W i{L T rt 10 FIB 2[25 v .f. rar c