The High Court · 2025

Occ. Journalist, R/o B 59, Soami Nagar (South) New Delhi - 17. 1 1 . 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. AND

1. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), IPT & Railways , Khammam. ...Petitioners/Claimants 2-1 3 ...Respondent No. 1 /Referring Officer

2. Bhukya Laxmi (died). Rep. by her LRs Respondents 3 to 7 3. Bhukya Ravi @ Ravindra, S/o Late Meetu. 4. Bhukya Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Meetu

5. Bhukya Bhadru, S/o Late Ramdas 6. Bhukya Gopinath, S/o Late Ramdas 7. Bhukya Balaji, S/o Not known to this Petitioner / All Aged major, r/o. Usirikayalapalli (V) Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. ...Respondents/Respondent No: 14-19 Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to withdraw LAOP No. B ot 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 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- 8 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 Respondents No.3 to 7: Sri R.R. Kalyan The Court made the following: ORDER // /^t ,/ / THE HONOI'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.374 of 2O23 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed by ttre petitioners seeking transfer of LAOP-No.8 of 2O2l from the fiIe of Agent to Government, Khamrnam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam or any 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 the respondent Nos.3 to 7.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that LAOP.No.8 of 2O2l pending on the frle of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act {for short ActJ. 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 \ 2 the son of petitioner No. 1. 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. 1 84. 1 1 Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. Each of them had an equal 1/3ra share. The land was acquired by the l.t respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPf & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operations arrd long wall of JK-5 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section a (1) Notification dated 2O.9.1995 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed by Award No.7 /96-97 dated 2O.O3.1997. A reference under Section 3O of the t and Acquisition Act was made to the Civil Court by the 1't respondent due to rival claims regarding Ac. 13.2O guntas of land in Sy-No.244l25 of Usirikayalapalli Village. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.4.0O guntas of land in Ay.No.244l12 of Usirikayalapalli village, a reference was made by the 1st respondent to the Senior Civil Judge's i I I I i I ! i I 3 Court, KotJragudem originally within whose jurisdiction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereafter it was returned as the said village comes under the agency area, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and finally in respect of land of Ac.4.O0 it was numbered as O-P-No.12 of 20O5 on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam and the sarne was settled by way of compromise on ta.2.20L7.

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated L8-O2.2O 17, tlre petitioners are entitled to receive 33o/o of tJre compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive the remaining 670/o and petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended tJrat petitioners frled an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value of tJre acquted hnd, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Govemment, Khammam, and numbered as LAOP.No.8 of 2021. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No.S of 2O2l are being conducted like an administrative proceeding, contrary to the 4 procedure known to law. The Agent to Government is asking parties to agree on a certain amount and settle the case against their interest, ratJrer than deciding the case on its merits. Due to the busy schedule of learned Agent to Government as he is discharging ttre 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.g of 2O2l fron the hle of learned Agent to Government, Ktrammam and transfer the same to the Court of principal District Judge, Khammam, or any other Civil Court at Ktrammam.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition stating that civil Court has no j urisdiction to try the matters pertaining to agency area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initially, *re reference was though sent to tlee civil Court, the Civil Court returned the file on the ground of jurisdiction as Usirikayalapalli is an agency area, tJle matter has to be heard by the Government to Agent. He further submitted that instead of transferring the matter to the civil Court, F f t I I I I I I I i I i I I i I : , I / 5 this Court carl direct tJee Agent to Governrnent to dispose of the matters at the earliest and relied on the judgment of ttris Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is tJlat reference was made by the l,and Acquisition Oftcer 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 the judgment of the Division Bench in Jalagam Sitarama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradeshl, 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 : ' 1978 ArR (AP) 82 I \ 6 '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 kadesh 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 transfer the said suit would have to be tried in accordance with the same iaw and procedure as would have been applicabte to that suit if it were to continue before the Agency Court." In view of the observations made in the above 7 judgment, learned counsel for ttre petitioners requested this Court to transfer LAOP.No.8 of 2O2L from the file of Agent to Government, Khammarn to any civil Court at Khammam.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.7Sl 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 judgmcnt it was observed as under: 'Without going into the merits of the case, as the place at which suit tmnsaction alleged to have taken place comes under Scheduted Area, it can be custrued tlat the Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, \,!,here the transaction took place in agency scheduie area, as such, the judgrnent and decree of thc first appellate Coqrt Senior Civil Judge at ? 7 Kothagudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2001 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2000 conlirming the judgrnent and decree dated 27.O1.2OO0 passed by the learned Principa.l Juni,or Civit Judge at Kothagudem in O.S-No-518 of 1996 are hereby declared as null and void. As per the ratio formulated in Nagarjuna Grameena 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 their 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 vieq/ of the said proposition, liberty is given to the parties herein to approach the apPropriate Agency Court in accordance with law. In view of the principle laid down in the above said decision and as itre triat Court as well as first appellate court being civil courts has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it is needless to deal with other substantia-l questions of law raised under ground No.9 of memorandum of second appeal." g- However, it is an admitted fact that in the matters pertaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisciiction. The Agent to Govemment 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 the file to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jr.rrisdiction 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 I I i i t I i 8 jurisdiction, whereas in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 22 it was observed as under : "22. It was also argued ttlat under the Act the Agency Courts indisposing of suits, appea.ls 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 since 5.24, C.P.C. is not made applicable to Agency Courts expressly 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 intended to govern the proceedings in suits, appeals or 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 Coun 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 Government 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 cannot be accepted. Further S. 12 (21 lays down that even ifa suit were transferred from the Agency Court to Civil Court, the same procedure as was required to be fo[owed by an Agency Coun 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 the Agent to Government and reference I I 9 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2OO5 and the acquisition is of the year 1995' The petitioners are senior citizens and old aged ald that the Agent to Government is not followilg the procedure and^ t not disposing of the matter, considering the extreme circumstances of this case, as it is a L'A'O'P', tJre same is transferred to the competent Civil Court at Khammam' The competent Civil Court at Khamrnam has to dispose of the matter at the earliest by following tJre procedure that has to be followed by the Agent to Government as observed in Jalaga.m Sitarama Rao's case, in para 24'

12. With the above observations, this Tlansfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and l'AOP'No '8 of 2O2l is transferred from the flle of Agent to Government' Khammam to the competent Civil Court at Khammam' The Agent to Governrnent is hereby directed to transmit the entire case hle relating to t'AOP'No'8 of 2O2l alter duly indexed, within a period of One (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of ttris order, under intimation to the other side. No costs. I /i i I 10 Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ASSIST Sd/- V. KAVITHA EGISTRAR N OFFICER To,

1. The Agent to Government, Khammam 2. The Principal District Judge, Khammam 3. One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to Sri R.R. Kalyan, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies kam/gh,w HIGH COURT DATED:02101t2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.374 ot 2023 S IAJ C: () l^ :.:- "/ /, ,Y :) 1[ lt$ lttl o D I /,,, \.- cespPx THIS TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED ! I I i I 0 l,r W