Miscellaneous Petition No. 379 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The Slre.ciaI Deprutv Collector (LA), IPT and Railways, Khammam. ..Respondent No.1/Referring Of f ice r.

2. .). 4. (3 Ilhuk_va Bhooli (cliecl), Rep. try her LRs Respondents 3 and 4. Bhukva Ramji, S/o l-ate Set'thya, Aged major. Bhukva Shankar, S/o [-atr' Seethya ,Aged major. ancl .l are r/o. Usirikar'.rta palli (V) Singareni Mandal, Khammam Dist.) ...Respondents/ Respondent Nos. 1{- I6.

Pt'tition Urrder Sectiotr 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circutlstatttes statecl in the afficlavit filecl therewith, the High Court may be pleaset{ ttr rvithtlran' l.AO['No. 7 o( 2021 from the file of the learned Agent to Covcrtrtnetrt, Kh.rrnmartr anci trat-rsfer tltt' same to the court of the Principal District Judrlc. Kh.rurmartr or anv otht'r Civil Corrrt at Khammam for disposal in accorLl.lllco tvith larr'. I I I I i I i I i i i I IA NO: 1.OF 2023 / // I 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.7 of 2021, on the file of the Agent to Government, Khammarn, pending disposal of Tr.CMP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Hari Sreedhar. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri R.R.Kalyan. The Court made the following: ORDER ,l {.. ) THE HOI{OI,'RABLE SUT. JUSTICE K' SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.379 of 2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of LAOP'No'7 of 2O2l from the frle of Agent to Government' Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam or any otJrer Civil Court at Khammam for disposal in accordance with ,Iaw. 2 Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned cor:nsel for the R.R.KalYan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri respondent No.2.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that LAOP'No '7 of 2O2l pending on the frle of Agent to Governrnent, Khammam is a reference under Section 18 of the t'and 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 No' 7' Similarly, petitioner No'2 is \ I I i I I I i I 2 \ the son of petitioner No.l. Petitioner No.4 is the wife, ald 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. 184.1 1 Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapa-lli Village' Singareni Mandal, Khamrnam District- Each of them had an equal 1/3ra share. The land was acquired by the lst respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPf & Railways, Ktrammam, for Depillaring Operations and long wall of JK-S Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 (1) Notifrcation dated 2O.9.1995 and Declaration under Section 6 of tlle Act followed by Award No.7 /96-97 dated 20.03. 1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac-O3.29 guntaS of land in Sy.No.24a/ 15 & 17 of Usirikayalapalli village, a reference was made by the l't respondent to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kothagudem originally within whose jurisd.iction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereafter it was returned as the said village comes under tJre agency area, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the 3 same and thereafter it was numbered as O'P'No'11 of 2OO5 on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam and the same was settled by way of compromise on 1a.o2.2017.

4. It is further contended that as per tJre said decree dated 18.02.2O17, petitioners are entitled to receive 337o of the compensation, while respondent No' 2 is entitled to receive ttre remainin g 670/o aod' petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners llled an application under Section 18 of tJle Act for enhancement of the market value of tlre acquired land, which was referred to tJle Court of tlre learned Agent to Government' Khammam, and nr:mbered as l-AOP.No.7 /2021. However' the proceedings in LAOP.No.7 l2O2l 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 tearned Agent to Government ,/ I .'l l1 I I I I I 4 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 withdrawal of LAOP No.7 /2021 from the frle of learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the same to t1le Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, or any otJrer Civil Court at Khammam.

5. On tJle other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed tJle petition stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matters pertaining to agency area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initially, tJle reference was tJrough sent to the civil Court, the Civil Court returned tl:e file on tl.e ground of jurisdiction as Usirikayalapalli is an agency area, t1 e 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 the matters at the earliest and relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.7S1 of 2OO2. I i I I t, 5

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, ttre main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that reference was rnade by the Lard Acquisition Oflicer 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 20 years and the Agent to Government is unable to handle the matter and he is not following ttre procedure. In the judgment of the Divisi,on Bench in Jalagam Sitarama Rao Vs State of Ardhra 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 tJle procedure that has to be followed by the Agent to Government. In para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed as under : "In view of the above discussioo we are clearly of the siew tl.at the Agency Court constituted under the Scheduled Distiicts Act and the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules framed thereunder is a Coun subordinate to the High Court and the high Coun has power under s.24 C.P-C. to transfer tlre suit pending in such Agency Court either ro etn other Ageacy Court or to a Civil Court. However, on such transfer tl:e ' t9z8 eIn 1ne; az 6 said suit would have to be tried in accordance vrith the same law artd procedure as would have been applicable to that suit if it were to continue before t}!e Agency Court." In view of the observations made in the above 7 . judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to transfer l,AOP.No.7 of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to any civil Court at Khammam

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on tire judgment of this Court in S.A.No.7Sl of 2OO2 wherein this Court set aside the judgment Court has passed W the Civil Court stating that civil no jurisdiction. In para 1l of the said judgment it was observed as under : "Without going into the merits of the case, as the place at which suit transaction alleged to have taken pliace comes under Scheduled Area, it can be construed that the Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, where the transaction took place in agency schedule area, as such, the judgment and decree of the first appell,ate Coun Senior Civil Judge at Kottragudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.O8.2OO1 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2OOO confirming the judgment ajld decree dated 27 -O1-nO0 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in O.S.No.518 of 1996 ar€ hereby declared as null and void. As per the ratio formulated in Nagarjuna Crarneena Bank's case (supra), it is clear that the perspns, who arc having decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the Civil Courts, may lay their claim b€fore the Agency Courrs. In the event of such claims being laid before rhe Agency Courts tiey shall be decided by the Agency Courts uninfluenced by any judgment, decree or order passed br // I / / I 1 the civil Courts. In view of the said proposition, Iiberty is given to the parties herein to aPProach the aPPropriate Agency Court in accordance with law. In view of tie principle laid down in the above said decision and as the trial Court as well as 6rst 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-9 of memorandum of second appeal."

9. However, it is an admitted fact that in the matters frtaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Governrnent has to decide the civil cases. In the present case also originally, reference was made to the Civil ilurt 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 Govemment to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in jurisdiction, whereas in Jalagam Sitarama f,tao's case, in para 22 it was observed as under : '22. lt was also argued that under the Act ihc Agcncy Courts indisposing of suits, appeals or other proceedings of a civil nature have to follow the procedure laid down under the Agency Rules and not the Civil P. C. and shce S.24, C.P.C. is not made applicable to Agency Courts expressly under the Rules, the transier of such suits cannot bc made by the high Court. It must be pointed out that this contentio! ignores the basic fact that the Scheduled Districts Act and the Agency Rules made thereunder are 8 intended to govem t}le proceedings in suits, appeals or other proceedings pending before the Agency Courts and do nol enlaJge 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 an independent enactment. Any procedure l,aid down in the A8ency Rules can only govem the Courts constituted thereunder and not Iimit the power of the high Court vested in it under a different enactment. For the same reason the contention of the learned Govemment pleader that 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 carnot be accepted. Further S.12 (2) lays down that even if a suit were transferr€d aom the Agency Court to Civil Court, the sarne procdurc as was required to be followed by ar 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 canlot be a valid consideration for holding that tl:e proceeding in an Agency Court cannot be transferred by the high Court or to a Civil Cou rt- " I 1. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before the Agent to Government and reference was made by the t and Acquisition OIIicer in the year 2O05 and *re acquisition is of the year 1995. The petitioners are senior citizens and old aged and that the Agent to Government is not following the procedure and not 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 Khammam has to disposc of the matter at the earliest by fotlowing the procedure that a 9 has to be followed by the Agent to Government as observed in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 24. \

12. With the above observations, ttris Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and L.AOP.No.7 of 2O2l is transferred from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam to ttre competent Civil Court at Khammam. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to transmit the entire case file relating to LAOP.No.7 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 the other side. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSIST T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICE \ To,

1. Ihe Agent to Government, Khammam. 2. The Prlncipal District Judge, Khammam 3. One CC to'Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate IOPUCI -1. One CC to Sri R.R.Kalyan, Advocate [OPUCI 5. -l ICK/gh n o CD Copies @& HIGH COURT DATED:U2/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.379 of 2023 Allowing tht' I r.(-.N'[.['. \\,ithout costs ui{ W 'r F,E S ?h k 3 10 ri8 20?5 .L 6 2 C) + SPATC