The High Court · 2025

Sri Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondent No 2 Sri R R Kalyan The Court made the following Order : I , ,h THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TR.C.M.P. No.373 of 2023 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of l,AOP.No. 10 of 2O2l from the hle of Agent to Government, Khammam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam or any other Civil Court at Khammam for disposa-l in accordance wittt 1aw.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that LAOP.No. 1O of 2021 pending on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 18 of the l"and Acquisition Act (for short ActJ. The deponent herein is petitioner No.8. 2 o The deponent and petitioners g to 12 are siblings and children of petitioner No. 7. Similarly, petitioner No.2 is 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 possr-'ssors of tl"e land in Sy.No.244 and 245, measuring Ac.184. 1 1 Guntas, situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. Each of them had an equal 1/3rd share. The land was acquired by the 1"t respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khamrnam, for Depillaring Operations and 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.7 196-97 dated 20.03.1997 . A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Civil Court by the l"t respondent due to rival claims regarding Ac.4.O5 guntas of land in Sy.No.244/8 ol Usirikayalapalli Village to the Senior Civil Judge, Kottragudem originaily within whose jurisdiction Usirikayalapally Village is <-- ) d 3 situated, however the same was returned by the Civil Court on the ground that the said village is situated in agency area, as such, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the sarne and returned to Agent to Government, Khammam which was numbered as O.p.No.14 of 2005. The case was eventually settled by way of a compromise on 18.2.2077.

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated I8.O2.2O17, the petitioners are entitled to receiw 33o/o of the compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entifled to receive the remaining 670/o and petitioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners {iled an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of ttre market value of the acquired land, which was referred to the Court of the learned Agent to Government, Khammarn, and numbered as LAOP.No- 10/2O21. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No. l1l2o2l are being conducted like an administrative proceeding, contrary to the procedure known to law. The Agent to Government is l! 4 h asking pafties to agree on a certain amount and settle the case against their interest, rather thal 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 been paid proper compensation. Hence, sought for withdrawal of LAOp. No.1O/2O21 frory the file of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam and transfer the same to the Court of principal District Judge, Khammam, or any other Civil Court at Khammam.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition stating that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matters pertaining to agency area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initia-lly, the reference ra.as though sent to the civil Court, the Civil Court returned the frle on the ground of jurisdiction as Usirikayalapalli is al agency area, the matter has to be heard by thr: Government to Agent. He further submitted d o 5 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 the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.7S1 of 2OO2-

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the materia-l on record, the main contention of learned counsel for tJ e petitioners is that reference was made by the Land Acquisition OIIicer ald the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notihcation 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 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 ' tez8 etn 1ae1 az 6 I r..\ by the Agent to Government. In para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed as under : "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 Pradesh Agency Rules framed thereunder is a Court subordinate to the High Court and tne high Court has power under s.24 C.P.C. to transfer the suit pending in sur:h Agency Court either to an other Agency Court or to zr Civil Court. Howeyer, on such transfer 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 before the Agencv Court." In view of the observations made in the above 7 . judgrnent, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to transfer l,AOP.No.10 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 the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2 wherein this Court set aside the judgment passed by the Civil Court stating thar civil Court has no jurisdiction. In para 1l of the said judgment it was observed as under: -7 ) "Without goint into the rngrils of the case, as the place at which suit transaction ajteged 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 took place in agency schedule area, as such, tt1s judgment and decree of the first appellate Court Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2001 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2000 confirming the judgrnent and decree dated 27.01.2000 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil 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 view 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 the trial Court as well as hrst 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 pertaining to agency area, tJle Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Government has to decide the civil cases. In the present case a,lso originaliy, reference was made to the Civil Court and the Senior Civil Judge returned the flle to the Agent to Government, Khammam I 8 I 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 Rao,s case, in para 2il 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 a civil nature have to follow the procedure laid down under tJ.e Agency Rules and not the Civil P. C. and since S.24, C.P.(. is not made applicable to Agency Courts expressly under the Rules, the transfer of such suits cann.)t b€ made by the high Court. It must be pointed out that this contention ig-nores the basic fact that the Scherluled Districts Act and the Agency Rules made there-:nder are intended to govem the proceedings in suits, appeals or other proceedings pending before the Agency Courts and do not enlarge or restrict the power of thr: High Court. Agency Court is a creature of a stature and the power to transfer a suit is vested in the high Court by an independent enactment. Any procedure laid down in the Agency Rules can oltly govenr the Courts constituted thereunder and rrot limit :he power of the high Court vested in it under a differt:nt 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 accor<iance with R. 12 of the Agency rules cannot be accepled. 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 9 Court in disposing of the suit or other proceeding transferred to it. Hence that fact also cannot be a va-lid consideration for holding that the proceeding in an Agency Court cannot be transferred by the high Court or to a Civil Court." 1 1. Further, as seen from the record, the matter is pending before the Agent to Government and reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2005 and the acquisition is of the year 1995- The petitioners are senior citizens and old aged and that the Agent to Governrnent 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 Khamrnam. 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 Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, inpara24.

12. With t]le above obseryations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is a,l1owed and LAOP.No. 10 of 2O2l is transferred from the hle of Agent to Government, I I 10 I Khammarn to the competent Civil Court at Ktrammam. The Agenr to Government is hsls$y directed to transmit the entire case file relating to [-AOP-No. lO of 2O2l dter 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. //TRUE COPY// AS T Sd/- V. KAVITHA T REGISTRAR ,/ SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 2 The Agent to Government' Khammam The Principal District Judge' Khammam The Civil Courl at Khammam 3 4. One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri R R Kalyan' Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies - VAJgh s HIGH COURT DATED:02101i2025 t ! o ( ( 5 ?, t 1 r{E 2 7 FEB !025 i)E :r,^."rc.. r?.0 6i' v I ORDER TRCMP.No.373 of 2023 ALLOWING THE TRCMP 1- )os