Miscellaneous Petition No. 396 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

employee. R/o80/2-B, First Floor, Malavia Nagar, Newbelhi. AND ...petitioners/Claima nts 2_13

1. The Special Deputy Collccror (l.A), II,T and Railways, Khammam. ..Respondent No.1/ Referring Off icer.

2. Shiv Prasad Lodh, S/o. K. t-oclh, Aged rnajor, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, yellandu, Khammam Dist. . Respondent/Respondent No. l-l Petition Under set--tio. 2-l ot thc C.l'.C. praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affida'it filt,cl the rt * ith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw LAoP No.3 oi 2021 fronr tlrt'file of the learned Ageni to Governrnerrt, Khammam and tra.rster the s.rr.e t() th(' court of the priniipal District Jutlge, Khammam or any other Ci'il Court .rt Khanrrnam for disposal accordance u,ith law. ^in -----7 lA NO:.1 OF 2023 / Petition under Section 151 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.3 of 2027 on the file of the Agent to Government, Khammam. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Hari Sreedhar. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.R.Kalyan The Court made the following: ORDER I ! I ') I a I I t, , THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE X. SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.396 of 2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is frted by the petitioners seeking transfer of LAop.No.3 of 2o2l from tlle file of Agent to Government, Khammam to tJ e Court of principal District Judge, Khammarn or ary other Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance with 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.3 of 2O2l pending on tJ e file of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section lg of the Land Acquisition Act (for short Act,). The deponent herein is petitioner No.8. The deponent and petitioner" , a ,, ,r" siblings and children of petitioner No. 7. Similarty, petitioner No.2 is tl:e son of petitioner No. l. petitioner No.4 is the vrife, and petitioners S and 6 are the sons of petitioner No.3. The deceased petitioners 1, 3 and 7 were joint owners ald 2 possessors of the land in Sy.No.244 and 245, measuring Ac.184.1 1 Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Ktrammam District. Each of them had al equal 1/3rd share. The land was acquired by the 1st respondent-special Deputy Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operations and long wall of 'IK-S Incline of Singareni Collieries Compaly Ltd., under Section 4 (1) Notifrcation dated 20.9.1995 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act iollowed by Award No-7/96-97 dated

20.03.1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.3.23 guntas in Sy.No.244 /26, Ac-7 -36 guntas in Sy.No.244 /27 and Ac.6.O8 guntas in Sy.No-245/2 of Usirikayalapal'li village, a reference was made by the l"t respondent to t.I:e Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kothagudem originaly witl.in whose jurisdiction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereafter it was returned as the sard village comes under tJre agency area, it has no jurisdiction to thereafter it was numbered as entertain the same ald O.P.No.4 of 2OO5 on the Iile of Agent to Government, Khammam and the same was settled by way of compromise on 18.02.2017 . 3

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated La.O2.2OI7, petitioners are entitled to receive 33olo of the compensation, while respondent No- 2 is entitled to receive the r€maining 670/o and petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petidoners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhalcement of the market value of the acquired land, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Govemment, Kha-rrmam, and numbered as LAOP.No.3/2O21. However, t1le proceedings in LAOP.No.3/2O21 .rre being conducted like an administrative proceeding, contrary to tlte procedure known to law. The Agent to Government is asking parties to agree on a certairl amount and settle t.lle case against their i]lrterest, rattrer t-han deciding the case on its merits- Due to the busy schedule of learned Agent to Government as he is discharging the functions of District Collector, the matters are pending for decades, and petitioners are not been paid proper compensadon. Hence, sought for withdrawal of LAOP.No.3/2O21 from the file of learned Agent to Government, I(hammam and transfer the same to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammarn, or urny other Civil Court at Ktrammam. 4 \

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 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 civi-l Court, this Court can 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.7Sl of 2OO2.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on recold, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that reference was made by the t-and Acquisition Oftcer and tJre petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (l) notifrcation are waiting for compensation for the last 2O years and the Agent to Govemment is unable to handle the matter and he is not following the procedure. In the judgment of the Division Bench in Jalagaa Sltarama Rao Vs State of / 5 Arldhra Pradeshl, relied on by the petitioners, it was observed that tJle High Court is having power to transfer the case pertaining to agency area to the civil Court and the civil Court has to follow tlre procedure that has to be followed by ttre Agent to Government. In para 24 of the said judgrnent, it was obsewed as under : "In 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 Court subordinate to the High Court and the high Court has power under s.24 C.P.C. to transfer the suit pending in such Agency Court either to an other Agency Court or to a Civil Court. However, on such trarsfer the said suit would have to be tried in accordance with the same law and procedure as would have been applicable to that suit if it wer€ to continue before the Agency Court." 7 . In view of the observations made in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to transfer LAOP.No.3 of 2O2f from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to any civil.Court at Khammam.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for tJre respondents relied on tJ:e judgment of this Court in S.A.No.7Sl of 2OO2 wherein tlds 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 : ' 1978 ArR (AP) 82 \ 6 "Without going into the merits of the case, as t]"e p1ace at which suit transaction alleged to have taken place cornes under Scheduled Area, it ca! be coostrued that thc Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, where the transaction took ptrace in agency schedule ares, as such, the judgment and decrce of the first appeu,ate Court Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.O8.2OO1 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2OOO conirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2000 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in o.S.No.518 of 1996 are hercby declsr€d as null ard void. As per the ratio formulated in Naga4'una Gra:aeena Bank's case (supra), it is clear that tlte persons, who are having decrees, orders or judgDents in their favour passed by the Civil Courts, may lay their claim before tJ:e Agency Courts. In the event of such claims being laid before the Agcncy courts they shall be decided by the Agency Courts uninfluenced by any judgrrent, decree or order passed by the civil courts. In view of t].e said proposition, liberty is given to tie parties herein to appmach the appropriate Agency Court in accorda-nce with law.. ln view of the principle laid down in the above said decision and as the trial Court as well as Iirst appelate court being civil courts has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it is needless to deal q.ith other substantial questions of l,aw raised under ground No.9 of memorandum of second appeal-" I . However, it is an admitted fact that in the 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 tJre fde to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jurisdiction that Usirikayalapalli Village comes under agetrcy area.

10. Generally, cases cannot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in t f I 7 jurisdiction, whereas in Jalagaa Sitararna Rao,s case, para 22 it was observed as under : 1n

22. lL.w"F a.lso argued that under the Act rhe Asencv :11X"_T_oory"*g of suirs, appeals or other proceedirigs of a clv! natllre have to foLlow the procedure latd down u"nder !h9 4eency Rules and not the Civit p. C. ;; 6.;;, ";;; C.P-C. is not made applicable to Agency Courts exoresslv under the Rules, the transfer of suci "rir" ..""", UJ _"J'. by the high court. It must be poi"t"d o"i-;;;'-i;]; contention ignores the basic facf that the S"h.d;i;; Districts Act and the Agency Rules made th"r=un;;;;; :::-11* to ,govern the proceedings in suits, appeals or orner proceedugs pending before the Agency Couni and do 1ot enlarge or restrict the power of tle'Higir C";;. A;;; uorlrr rs a creature of a statute and the power to rranJfer I suit is vested in the high Court by an independenr enactment. Any procedure laid down i" th. Ag.".y R;l;; :T oryy govem tlre Courts constitutea tf,...".ia.. limit the power of the high Court vested - i, ,"a..'" ""J ""t orllerent enactment- For t}Ie same reason rhe contention o[ the learned Government pleader rhat o,--" p;;";;i;r; ;i 'rtre lh: Ci:il P. C.- not having been made appticabte ro ryT::$iC: before the Agency Courrs Ure' irgt ;;" ;; preciuded troE transferring the suit from one Agency Coun to.arother except in accordance with R. 12 of"rhe-eee;u rules carrnor. be accepted. Furrher S.12 (2) l; ;;*ri,;;1 :"..1 { " suit were transferred from the ig."d "";;-; t}le same procedure as was requred to be 9ll ":1", Iouowed by an Agency Court is to be followecl b! rhc transleree Court in disposing of the suit or ot her pro. J.ar.,n tralsterred to it. Hence that fact also cannot Le a ,alii consideration for holding that the proceedin* ; ; A".;;; be transferred by the high CoJn or ro a-r.rvil ;:XI ".*"",

11. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before the Agent to Government and reference was made by the Land Acquisition Ofiicer in tie year 2OO5 and the acquisition is of the year l9g5. The pelitioners are senror citizens and old aged and t}lat the Agent to Government is not l l i I I I I I I i 1 I-l I I I i i { ( 8 following tJ:e procedure and not disposing of tJre matter, considering the extreme circurnstances of this case, as it is a L.A.O.P., the same is transferred to tl1e competent Civil Court at Kharnmarn. The competent Civil Court at Khammam has to dispose of the matter at the earliest by following the procedure that has to be followed by the Agent to Government as observed in Jalegam Sltara-o Rao's case, in para 24.

12. With ttle above observations, this Ttansfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed ald LAOP.No.3 of 2021 is transferred from the file of Agent to Goveroment, Khammam to t}le competent Civil Court at Khammam. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to transmit t]1e entire case file relating to LAOP.No.3 of 2O2l after duly indexed, within a period of One {l} month from the date of receipt of copy of t}ris order, under intimation to the other side. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. I i I I I //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR [v TION OFFICER To,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ]CK/ 'fhe Agent to Covcntllretrt, Khammam. 1-hc l)rincil-ral District Jutlgt', Khammam. Orre CC to Sri Hari Srt'cclhar, Aclvocate tOpUCI 9." !! ro Sri R.R.Kall,arr, Advrxare IOPUCI Tn'o CL) Copies o I ( a( J I nE Sla r6: 1 10 FEB 2U5 '( 2 c) 4/ * OpSFAl't'd HIGH COURT DATED:lz/07/2025 ORDF,It TRCMI'No.396 of 2023 Allovvirrg the'Ir.C.M.['. without costs. 9 W