The High Court · 2025

11. Parsa Srinivas (Died), Rep by his LRs Petitioners 8 to 10 & 12 12.Parsa Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, Age: 66 years, Occ: employee, R/o 80/2-8, First Floor, Malavia Nagar, New Delhi. ...Petitioners/Claimants 2-1 3 AND '1. Special Deputy Collector (LA). IPT & Railways . Khammam 2- Lakavath Mangli, w/o. Hari, Aged major. r/o Usirikayalapalli (V) Singareni Manda[, Khammam District. ...Respondent No.1 /Referring Officer ..RespondenURespondent No.1 4 I I I i I I : i i i I I i i I // // Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw LAOP No. 2 of 2021 from the file of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the same to the court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam or any other Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance with law, lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in LAOP No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Agent to Government, Khammam pending the disposal of the above Tr. CMP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri R.R. Kalyan The Court made the following: ORDER ( ! I I I i I I i I ! I I I I t I I I I. ! THE HONOT'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TR.C.M .P. No.376 of 2023 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is hled by the petitioners seeking transfer of LAOP'No'2 of 2O2l from the fiIe of Agent to Government, Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam or any other Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance wittr law.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that LAOP'No'2 of 2021 pending on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ActJ. Ttre deponent herein is petitioner No'S' The deponent and petitioners 9 to 12 ate siblings and chil&en of petitioner No' 7' Simitarly, pelitioner No'2 is // /// ") I I II I I 2 the son of petitioner No.l. petitioner No.4 is the wife, arrd petitioners 5 and 6 are t}le sons of petitioner No.3. The deceased petitioners l, 3 and 7 were joint owners and possessors of the land in sy.No.244 ald 245, measuring Ac. 184. I I Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Marrdal, Khammam District. Each of them had an equal i/3.a share. The land was acquired by the lst respondenr-special Deput5r Collector (L{) IpT & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operations and long wall of JK-S Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 (ll Notifrcation dated 2(..g.lgg| and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed by Award No.7/96-97 dated 2O.O3.1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.2.Og guntas of land in Sy.No.244 /14 of Usirikayalapalli village, a reference was made by the l"t respondent to the Senior Civil Judge,s Court, Kothagudem originally within whose jurisdiction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereafter it was returned as the said village comes under the agency area, it has no j urisdiction to entertain the same and 3 thereafter it was numbered as O.P.No.2 of 2OO5 on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam and the same was setfled by way of compromise on L8.O2.2O17.

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated 18.O2.2017, petitioners are entided to receive 33olo of the compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive the remaining 670/o and petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners filed an application under Section 18 of t}le Act for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Govemment, Ktrammam, and numbered as LAOP.No.2/2O2L. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No.2/2O2L are being conducted like arr administrative proceding, contra-ry to the procedure known to law. The Agent to Govemment is asking parties to agree on a certain amount and settle the case against their interest, ratlrer than deciding tlle case on its merits. Due to the busy schedule of learned Agent to Government as he is discharging the functions of District Collector, I i I I I I I 1 i 4 the matters are pending for decades, and petitioners are not been paid proper compensation. Hence, sought for withdrawal of LAOP No.2/2O21 from the file of learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the same to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, or any other Civil Court at Kharnmam.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matters pertaining to agency area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initially, the reference was though sent to the civil Court, the Civil Court returned the file on the ground of jurisdiction as Usirikayalapalti is an agency area, tJre matter has to be heard by the Government to Agent. He further submitted that instead of transferring the matter to the civi-l Court, this Court carl direct the Agent to Government to dispose of the matters at the earliest and relied on the judgment of this 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 , I 5 of learned counsel for the petitioners is tJ at reference was made by the Land Acquisition Offrcer and the pelitioners who have parted with thet land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notificati,on are waiting for compensation for the last 2O years and the Agent to Government is unable to handle t]re matter and he is not following the procedure. In the judgment of the Division Bench in Jq lagsrrr Sitarama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradeshr, relied on by the petitioners, it was observed that tl.e High Court is having pov/er 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 the Agent to Government. In para 24 of the said I judgment, it was observed as under : "ln view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the Agency Court constituted under the Scheduled Districts Act and the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules framed thereunder is a Coud subordinate to the High Court and the high Court has 1rcwer under s.24 C.P.C. to tlansfer the suit pending in such Agency Court either to an other Agency Court or to a Civil Court. However, on such tr-ansfer the said suit would have to be tri:d in accordance with the sarne law and procedure as would have been applicable to that suit if it were to oontinue before the Agency Court.' ' rsza ern 1ne1 8z 5

7. In view of the observations made in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested tlris Court to transfer L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Government, Khamrnam to any civil Court at Khammam.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for tl.e respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2 wherein this Court set aside the judgment passed by the Civil Court stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction. In para 11 of the said judgment it was observed as under: "Without going into the merits of the case, as the place at which suit transaction all€ged to have taken ptracc comes under Scheduled Area, it car b€ construed that the Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain tlre suit, where the transaction took place in agency schedule area, as such, ttre Judgment alld decree of the ftrst appellate Court S€nior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgnent and decree dated 23.O8.2OO[ passed in A.S.No.6 of 2OOO conlirminS the judgment and decree dated 27.OI.2OOO passed by the learned Principa.l Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in O.S.No.sl8 of 1996 are hereby declared as null and void. As per the ratio formulated in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank's c.rsc (supra), it is clear that the persons, who are having dccrees, orders or judganents in their favour passed by the Crvrl Courts, rnay lay their claim before the Agercy Courts. lD the event of such claims being laid before the Agency Couns they shall be decided by the Agen€y Courts uninflucnced by any judgment, decree or order passed b5r the crvil Couns. In view of the said proposition, liberty is giv.n to the parties herein to approach the appropriate Agcocv Court in accordance with law. In view of the principlc laid down in the abov^e said decision and as the / ( 7 trial Court as well as first appellate court being ciyil courts has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it ii needless to deal with other substantia_l questions of law raised under ground No.9 of memorandum of second appeal."

9. However, it is an admitted fact that in tlre matters pertaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Government has to decide the civil cases. In the present case also originally, reference was made to the Civil Court and the Senior Civil Judge returned ttre file to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jurisdiction that Usirikayalapalli Village comes under agency €rrea.

10. Generally, cases cannot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in jurisdiction, whereas in the judgment in Jalagam Sitarama f,lao,s case, in para 22 it was observed as under : "22. It was also argued that under the Act the Agency Coun-s hdisposing of suits, appeals or other proceedings of a civi.l natur€ have to follow the procedure traid down under the Agency Rules and not the Civil p. C. arld since S.24, C.P-C. is not made applicable to Agerrcy Courts expressly under the Rules, the transfer of such suits camot be madl by the high Courr. tt must be point€d out that this contention ignores t}Ie basic fact that the Scheduled Districts Act and the Agency Rules made thereunder are intcnded to govern the proceedings in suits, appeals or I I 8 other proceedings p€nding before the Agency Courts and do not enlarge or restrict the power of the High Court. Agency Court is a creature of a statute and the power to traflsfer a suit is vested in the high Court by an independent enactment. Any procedure laid down in the Agency Rules can only govern the Courts constituted thereunder and not limit the power of the high Court vested in it under a different enactment. For the same reason the contention of the learned Govemment pleader tirat certain provisions of the Civil P. C. not having been made applicable to the proceedings before the Agency Courts the high court is precluded from transferring the suit from one Agency Court to another except in accordance with R. 12 of the Agency rules cannot be accepted. Further S.l2 (2) tays down that even if a suit were transferred from the Agency Court to to be Civil Court, the same procedure as was r€quired followed by an Agency Court is to be followed by the transferec Coun in disposing of the suit or other procecding transferred to it. Hence that fact a.lso cannot be a valid consideration for holding that the proceeding in an Agency Court cannot be transferred by the high Court or to a Civil Court."

11. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before the Agent to Government arrd reference was made by the l,and AcquisiLion Offrcer in the year 2OO5 and the acquisition is of the year 1995. The petitioners are senior citizens and old aged and that the Agent to Govemment is not following the procedure and not disposing of the matter, considering the extreme circrmstances of this case, as it is a L.A.O.P., the same is transferred to the competent Civil Court at Khammam. The competent Civil Court at Kharnmarn has to dispose of the matter at the earliest by following the procedure that 9 has to be followed by the Agent to Govemment as observed in Jalagam Sitarama Raors case, in pa::a 24.

12. With ttre above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and l,AOp.No.2 of 2O2L is transferred from the hle of Agent to Government, Khammam to the competent Civil Court at Khammam. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to tralsmit the entire case hle relating to l,A,Op.No.2 of 2O2l after duly indexed, within a period of One (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, under intimation to the other side. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1

5. The Agent to Government, Khammam The Principal District Judge, Khammam One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate {OPUCI One CC io Sri R.R. Kalyan, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies kam/gh w l I I I \ I : HIGH COURT DATED:02101t2025 I ORDER TRCMP.No.376 of 2023 ( ;\ o .--a:' ,:.Ll---v gnt []j 0t Jtvrs ? THIS TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED