The High Court · 2025

Occ: Journalist, R/o B-59, Soami Nagar (South) New Delhi - 17 11. Parsa Srinivas (Died), Rep by his LRs Petitioners 8 to '10 & 12 l2.Parsa Venkata Ramana. S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, Age: 66 years, Occ:employee, Rlo 8012-8, First Floor, Malavia Nagar, New Delhi. AND 'L The Special Deputy Collector (LA), IPT and Railways , Khammam ...Petitioners/Claimants 2-1 3 ...Respondent No.1/Referring Officer

2. Muralidhar Lodh (died), rep by his LRs Respondents 3 to 9 3. Vasudev Lodh, s/o. late lvluralidhar Lodh, Aged major, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District. I

4. Bhupal Dev. s/o. late Muralidhar LoOh. Aged major, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District.

5. Leeladhar, s/o. late Muralidhar Lodh. Aged major, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District.

6. Gayathri Bai, d/o. Iate Muralidhar Lodh, Aged major, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District.

7. Jnaneswari, d/o. late Muralidhar Lodh, Aged major, r/o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District. B. Jala, d/o. late Muralidhar Lodh, Aged rndlor, o. No. 14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District.

9. Sannodevi Lodh,.dio Muralidhar Lodh, Aged major, r/o. No. '14 Basthi, Yellandu, Khammam District. ...RespondenURespondent No: 1 4-21 Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw LAOP No. 5 ol 2021 from the file of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the sarne to the court of the Principal District Judge. Khammam or any other Civil Courl at Khammam for disposal in accordance with law. 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, 5 of 2021 on the file of the learned Agent to Government, Khamnram 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 // THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.3 aO of2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscelianeous petition is filed by the petitioners seeking trarsfer of LAOP.No.S of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khamrnam or arry other Civil Court at Khammam for disposa,l 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.S of 2O2l pending on the frle 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.8. The deponent and petitioners 9 to 12 are siblings and children of petitioner 1t16. 7. Similarly, petitioner No.2 is 2 the son of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4 is the wife, and petitioners 5 ald 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 arrd 245, measuring Ac.184. I I Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. Each of them had an equal 1/3'd share. The land was acquired by the 1st respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) Im & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operations and long wall of JK-5 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 ( 1) Notifrcation dated 20 -9 .1995 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed by Award No-7 196-97 dated 20.03.1997 - A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to lhe Civil claims regarding Court by the l"t respondent due to Ac. 1. 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.244l 16 of Usirikayzdapalli Village. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.13'38 guntas of land in _rival Sy.No.244l4 of Usirikayal apallt, a reference was made by the ls respondent to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, ; --1 ./r. Kothagudem originally wit-hin whose jurisdiction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereafter it was returned as the said village comes under tlee agency area, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and thereafter it was numbered as O.p.No.9 of 2005 on the file of Agent to Govemment, Khammam in respect of and the same was settled by way of comprornise on 18.o2.2017. 4 It is further contended that as per the said decree d,ated 18.02.2O17, petitioners are entitled to receive 33yo of the compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive the remainin g 67%o aad, petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners filed an application under Section 1g of the Act for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Government, I{rammam, and numbered as LAOP.No.5/2021. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No.5/2021 are being conducted like an administrative proceeding, contrary to the procedure 4 known tc, 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, the matters are pending for decades, and petitioners are not been paid proper compensation. Hence, sought for withdra'vval of LAOP No.5/2O21 from the hle of learnei Agent to Government, Khammam and tra-nsfer fhe same to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, or any other Civil Court at Khammam.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition stating ttrat 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 hle 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 civil Court, 5 this Court can direct the Agent to Government to dispose of the matters at the ea-rliest and relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No-751 of 2OO2.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and t"Le material on record, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that reference was made by the L,and Acquisition OIIicer and the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notifrcation are waiting for compensation for the last 2O years and the Agent to Government is unable to handle the matter and he is not following the procedure. In t1le judgment of the Division Bench in Jalagam Sitarama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradeshr, relied on by the pelitioners, 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 : ' rszs ern 1ae1 sz ./^. /'/ i I r 6 "ln riew of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the Aeencv Court constituted under the Scheduled Disticts Aci ,ni th. n dnt, Pradesh Agency Rules framed thercunder is a Court subordinate to the High Court and the rrigh Court has power under s.24 C.P.C. to transfer the suit pcndins in such Agency Court either to al other Agencl Cou-l or rJa Civil Court. However, on such transfer thr sai.i suit would have to be tried in accordance with the samr: law and Drocedure as would have been applicabl(: to that suit if it were to @nLinue before the Agency Court." In view of the observations made in the above 7 judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to transfer LAOP.No.S of 2O2l from the frle of Agent to Government, Khammam to any civil Court at Khammam.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of tl.is Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2 wherein this Court set aside the judgment Court has passed by the Civil Cqurt stating that civil no jurisdiction. In para I 1 of the said judgment it was observed as under : "Without going into tlle merits of the case, as the place at whi<:h suii 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 thc trarsaction took place in agency schedule area, as such' the judpment and decree of the first appellate Cor:rt Senior,Civil irage ar Kothagudem vide judgment and decree daled 23.C8.2OO1 passed in A.S.N;.6 of 2OO0 conflrming the judgment and decree daLed' 27.ol.2ooo passed by the ieanLed rrincipal Junrar Civil Judge at Kothagudem in o.S.\o.518 of 1996 are-h?eby declared as nutl and void' I i l ,r .,,, ,l 7 As per the ratio formulated in Nagarjuna Grarneena Bank's case (supra), it is clear that the persons, who are having decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the Civil Courts, may lay thet claim before the Agency Courts. In the event of such claims being laid before the Agency Courts they shall be decided by the Agency Courts uninfluenced by any judgment, decree or order passed by the civil Courts. In view of the said proposition, [berty is given to the pa,rties herein to approach the appropriate Agency Court in accordance with law- In view of the principle laid do&Tr in the above said decision and as the trial Court as well as firct appellate court being civil courts has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it is needless to deal with other substantial questions of law raised under ground No.g of memoraldum of second appeal." 9- However, it is an admitted fact that in the matters pertaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Governrnent has to decide t6e civil cases. In the present case also originally, reference was made to the Civil Court and the Senior Civil Judge returned the file to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jurisdiction that Usirikayalapalli Village comes under agency area.

10. Generally, cases cannot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in jurisdiction, whereas in Jalagam Sitarama flao's case, in para 22 it was 'observed as under : "22. It was a-lso argued that under the Act the Agency Courts indisposing of suits, appeals or other proceedings of 8 [I##{,#ffi C ourt."

11. F\fther, as seen from ttre record' the matter ls pending before the Agent to Government and reference the Land Acquisition Oflicer in the Year was made by acquisition is of the Year 1995. The 2OO5 and the petitioners are senior citizens and old aged and that the Agent to Government is not following the procedure and not clisposing of the matter' considering the extreme circurnstancesofthiscase,aSitisaL.A.O.P.,thesameiS I -1, .I // 9 transferred to the competent Civil Court at Khammam. 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 th" Agent to Governrnent as observed in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 24.

12. With the above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and LAOp.No.S of 2O2l is transferred from the Iile of Agent to Government, Khammam to the competent Civil Court at fh"-m*n. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to transmit the entire case file relating to LAOpNo.S of 2O2l alter duly indexed, within a period of One (l) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, under intimation to Lhe other side. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- P. cH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ANT REGISTRAR AS CTTON OFFICER To,

1. The Agent to Government' Khammam 2. The Principal District Judge' Khammam 3. One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar' Advocate IOPUC] '4. One CC to Sri R R Kalyan' Advocale [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies \6- katn/gh '6 I I 6 HIGH COUR]i DATED:0210112025 ORDER TRCMP.No,380 ot 2023 0 5 Nan 2ffi5 nl, ALLOWING THE TRCMP .ggloL *tr --[ I --: !l