High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay the proceedings in LAOP No.6 of 202-1. on the file of the Agent to Government, Khammam, pending disposal of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Hari Sreedhar. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2: Sri R.R.Kalyan. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTIRABLE SMT. JUSTICE I(. SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.378 of 2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is frled by the petitioners seeking transfer of LAOP.No.6 of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammarn or any other Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsei 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.6 of 2O2l pending on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act'). The deponent herein is petitioner No.S. The deponent and petitioners 9 to 12 are siblings and children of petitioner No. 7. Similarly, petitioner No-2 is 7 I I I I I l I 2 the son of petitioner No.l. Petitioner No.4 is the wife, and petitioners 5 and 6 are the sons of petitioner No.3. The deceased petitioners 1, 3 and 7 were joint owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.244 and 245, measuring Ac. 184. I I Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. Each of them had an equal l/3rd share. The land was acquired by the 1"t respondent-Special Deputy Collector (I"A) IPT & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operations and long wall of JK-5 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 ( 1) Notifrcation dated 2O.9 .1995 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed b1' Award No.7 196-97 dated 2O.O3. 1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.13.20 guntas of land in Sy .No.244 / 25 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 / i I i I I I I thereafter it was numbered as O.P.No.10 of 2OO5 on the frle of Agent to Government, Khammam and the same was settled by way of compromise on 18.02.2O17.

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated 18.O2.2O 17, petitioners are entitled to receive 33olo of the compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive t-lre remaining 67"/o and petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Govemrnent, Khamrnam, and numbered as LAOP.No.6/2O21. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No.6/2O21 are being conducted like an administrative proceeding, contrary to the procedure known to law. The Agent to Government is asking parties to agree on a certain amount and settle the case against their interest, rather than 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, 4 the matters are pending for decades, and petitioners are not been paid proper compensation. Hence, sought for withdrawal of L,AOP.No.6 /2021 ftor:r the file of learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the sarne to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ktrammam, or arry other Civil Court at Khamrnam.

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 agenry 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 gror:nd of jurisdiction as Usirikaya-lapalli 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 civil Court, this Court can direct the Agent to Govemment to dispose of the matters at the earliest and relied on tJre judgment of this Court in S.A.No.75l of 2OO2. 6- Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the main contention 5 of learned counsel for tJ e petitioners is that reference was made by the land Acquisition Officer and the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notilication are waiting for compensation for the last 2O years and 6hs Agent to Government is unable to handle the matter and he is not foliowing the procedure. In the judgment of the Division Bench in Jalagam Sitarama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradeshr, relied on by the petitioners, it was observed that 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 the Agent to Government. In para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed as under: 'ln view of the above discussio! we are clearly of the view that the Agency Court constituted under the Scheduled Districts Act ard 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 eitber to an other Agency Court or to a Ciwil Court. However, on such tiansfer 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 were to continue befo{-e the Agency Court." ' roza Rtn 1ee1 az \ 6

7. In view of the observations made in t].e above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested tlris Court to transfer LAOP.No.6 of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Government, Khamrnam to any civil Court at Khammam.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on ttre 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 pl,ace at which suit trarsaction 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 tff)k place in agency schedule aJca, as such, the judgment and decree of rhe first appetlate Court S€nior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.OA.2OOL passed in A.S.No.6 of 2OOO confirmiag the judgment and decree darcd 27.O1.2OOO passed by the learned Principal Junior Civrl Judge at KothaSudertr in O.S.No-518 of 1996 arc hereby declared as null and yoid. As per the ratio formularcd in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank,s case (supra), it is clear that the persons, who are having decrees, orders or judgmenrs in their favour passed by ttre Civil ('orrns. may lay rheir claim before the Agency Courts. In the evcnt of such claims being laid before the Agency Couns they shall be decided by the Agency Courts uninfluenced by any judgment, decree or order passed by the civil Courrs, In view o[ the said proF,osition, liberty is given lC) the parlies herein to approach the appropriate Agencv Coun in accordimce w.ith law. ln view of the prin<:iplc laid dou,n in rhe above said decision arld as the i I I ! E t I I r I r I I ! I 7 tdal Court as well as first appellate court being civil courts has no jurisdiction to dea,l with the matter, it is needless to deal with other substantia.l questions of Law raised under ground No.g of memorandum of second appea1."

9. However, it is an admitted fact that in tlee 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 origrnally, reference was made to the Civil Court and the Senior Civil Judge returned the hle to the Agent to Government, Ktrammam on the ground of jurisdiction tJlat Usirikayalapalli Vi-llage comes under agency area.

10. Generally, cases calnot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in jurisdiction, whereas in the judgment in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 22 7t was observed as under : "22. lr i\,'as also argued that under the Act the Agency Courts indisposing of suits, appeals or other proceedings of a civrl nature have to follow the procedure laid down under the Agency Rules alrd not the Civil P. C. and since S.24, C,P.C. is not made applicable to Agency Courts expr€ssly 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 intendcd to govern the proceedings in suits, appeals or i 1 I r 8 other proceedings 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 and the power to transfer a suit is vested in the high Court by ar irtdependent enactment. Any procedure laid down in the Agency Rules can or y govern the Courts constituted tiereunder and not limit the power of the high Court vested in it under a dillerent enactment. For the sarne reason the contention of the learned Govemment pleader that certain provisions of the Civil P. C. not having been made applicable to t}Ie 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 carnot 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 an Agency Court is to be followed by the transferee Court in disposing of the suit or other proceeding transferred to it. Hence that fact also 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." I 1. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before t-lle Agent to Government and reference was made by the Land Acquisition Offrcer in the year 2O05 and the acquisition is of the year 1995. The petitioners €rre senior citizens and old aged and that ttre Agent to Government is not following the procedure and r,rot disposing of the matter, considering the extreme circumstances 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 Khamrnam has to dispose of t1.e matter at the earliest by following the procedure that I has to be followed by the Agent to Government as observed in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, tnpeur:a24.

12. With the above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2O2L is transferred from the frle of Agent to Government, Khammam to the competent Civil Court at Ktrammam. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to transmit tlre entire case hle relating to L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2021 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. //Tt\UECOP'{/ Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S ON OFFICER \ To,

1. The Agent to Covernrne nt, Kharnmam. 2. The Principal District _lutlgt', Khammam. 3. One CC to Sri llari Sreetlh.rr, Advcrcate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri R.R.Kalyan, Atlvocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies lcK/gh @) x l I I i i x I I I l I i 1j i I i I I HICH COURT DATED:lz/07/202s ORDER TRCMP.No.378 of 2O23 Allowing the Tr.C.M.P. without costs. w o e' -) ,.r- S iA 1q 10 rtj 2til5 t:) .1, , Dr S F,,6.TC'i ,