The 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 may be pleased to stay the proceedings in LAOP No. '1 1 of 2021 on the file of the Agent tr: Government, Khammam pending the disposal of the above Tr.CMP. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 5 : Sri R R Kalyan The Court made the following Order : il, 6 ,/. THE HONOT'RA.BLE SMT. (IUSTICE K. SUiIANA TR.C.M.P. No.3tl of 2023 ORDER: This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is frled by the petitioners seeking transfer of LAOP.No. 1 7 of 2O2l from the hle of Agent to Government, Khamrnam to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam or any other Civil Court at Khamrnam for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned courlsel 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. 11 of 202L .per:dimg on the file of Agent to Government, Khamrnam is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ActJ. 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 the son of petitioner 2 No.1. Petjtioner No.4 is the wife, and petitioners 5 and 6 are the sons of petitioner No.3. The deceased petitioners 1, 3 and 7 rvere joint owners and possessors of the lald in Sy.No.244. and 245, measuring Ac. 184. 11 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) IPI & Railways, Khammam, for Depillaring Operalions and long wa-ll of JK-5 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 (1) Notilrcation dated 20.'9.1995 and Declaration under Seclion 6 of the Act followed by Award No.7/96-97 dated 2O.03.1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.13.10 guntas, Ac.3.26 guntas, Ac.4.29 guntas, A<:.2.O7 guntas and Ac.3.24 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.2,44/2, 244/3, 24411, 24414 and 24415 (s48197lr of Usirikayalapalli, a reference was made by the lst respondent to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kothagudem origina-lly',lrrithin whose jurisdiction, Usirikayalapalli village was situated, thereaJter it was returned as the said village comes unde;: the agency area, it has no jurisdiction to w \ n 3 entertain the same and thereafter it was numbered as O.P.No. 15 of 2OO5 on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam and t]le s€une was settled by way of compromise on I8.O2.2OIZ .

4. It is further contended that as per the said decree dated 78'o2-2or7, petitioners are entitred to receive 33%o of the compensation, while respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive the remainin g 67%o and petilioners received the compensation under protest. It is further contended that petitioners filed an application under Section rE of the Act for enhancement of tl.e market value of the acquired land, which was referred to tJ.e Court of the learned Agent to Government, Khammam, and numbered as LAOP.No. I I /2021. However, the proceedings in LAOP.No. 1l/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 alnount ald settle the case against their interest, ratJrer than deciding the case on its merits. Due to the busy schedule of learned Agent to Government s 4 as he is discharging the functions of District Collector, the matters are pending for decades, and petitioners are not been paid proper cornpensation. Hence, sought for witlrdrawzrl of LAOP.No. 1 I l2o2l from the file of learned Agent to (iovernment, Khammam and transfer the same to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, or any other Civit 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 ttre matters pertaining to agenc)' area and it is barred by jurisdiction. Initially, the reference was ttrough sent to the civil Court, the Civil Court returned the frle on thr: 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, this Court can direct the Agent to Government to dispose of the matters at the earliest and relied on the judgment of this Cotrt in S.A.No.7S1 of 2OO2. 6 5 o

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and t}le rnaterial on record, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that reference was made by the l,and AcquisiLion Offrcer and the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under sec tion 4 ( I ) notifrcation are waiting for compensation for the last 20 years and the Agent to Government is unable to haldle t-he matter and he is not following the procedure. In ttre judgment of the Division 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 pertairfng 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 : 'In 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 thereuDder 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 law ald ' reza ern 1ee; sz 6 (' procedure as would have been applicable to that suir if it were to continue before the Agency Court.' In view of the observations made in the zrbove judgment, learned counsel for the petiLioners requested 7 . tlris Court to transfer LAOP.No.11 of 2O2l from the file of Agent to Govemrnent, Khammam to arry civil Court at Khammarn.

8. On the other ha:nd, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.751 of 2OO2 wherein this Court sef asidc 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 : "Wirh,trut going into the merits of the case, as the place at which suit transaction a-lleged 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 alea, as such, the judgment a.IId decree of the first appellate Court Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem vide judgnent and decree dated 23.08.2001 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2000 conlirming the judgment and decree dated 27.OI.2OOO passed by the learned 'f.tr"lpr-t Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in O.S No 518 oi 1996 are hereby declared as null and void. As per the ratio formLrlated in Nagarjuna Grameena Balk'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 laj in"i. .t"i- before the Agency Courts. In the event of such claims being taid before the Agency Courts the-v shall be decid,:d by the Agency Courts uninlluenced by any judgment decree or order passed by the civil Courts. In view of the sa.ld proposition, liberty is given to Lhe parties herein to approach the allpropriate Agency Court in accordance with law. ln vieq' .{ f' 7 of t}le principle laid down in the above said decision and as tlle tria-l 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 memorandura 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 Governnent has to decide the civil cases. In the present case also originally, reference was made to the Civil Court ald tl're Senior Civil Judge returned the frle to the Agent to Government, Khammam on the ground of jurisdiction tJlat 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 I para 22 it was observed as under : "22- lt was also argued that under the Act the Agency Courts indisposing of suits, appeals or other proceedings of a civil nature have to fouow the procedure laid down under the Agency Rules and not the Civil P. C. and since S.24, C.P.C. is not made applicable to Agency Courts expressly under the Rules, the transfer ofsuch suits cannot be made by the high Court. It must be pointed out that this contention ignores the basic fact tiat 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 8 t

9.".111 Court bv an independent ena(tment Any procedurc l-q i^ rl-p aocn(]v Rules can onty Bovem the Courls conslltutetl in..,,,"a?. ,i-ra not limit the power of the high Court vesleo rrl it urrder a dillerent enactment For the same :tl":l-:l: r.tt""a covernment. pleadtt ,th'lt--:::i ] .,;;;;;"- ";;.- .f the Civit P' C nol havinB been madt applrca,ore i'::;:':;;"";J""s before the Asencv couns the hish court rs "..ti"i"'." p".*i,iJ r'.- E-'i"'i::j:';il'{:'[ T',f5Til:;{ .: another except in accordance ' lritt.i' u"'".!"p,.d p"tt't' S I2 (2) lavs aown^ 1n3 ^ever; 1t 1 rrom the Asencv court to civrlcourl' tr e fi;;;;;I;d same procedure as was required to be followed b\ an Agen' y- f"u.;ed bv tire rransferee court in disposing ')r L1"; i;;; ;; oin". p-tttdir,g transferred to it Hencc that fa'l ;;"il for holding that the l1'"'."1.""t,""'o.- i- "ria "Jtttia"tation i" "t Agency court cannot be transferrcd b) tlre ;;.;;; i,igt, Cnr.t or to a Civil Court " 1S Further, as seen from the record' the matter 11. pending before ttre Agent to Government and reference was made by' the Land Acquisition Offrcer in the year 2O05 and The petiLioners are the acgrisition is of the year 1995' senior citizens and old aged arrd procedure and not Governrnent is not ,following the 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 cornpetent Civil Court at Kharnmarn has to dispose of that the Agent to thematterattheearliestbyfollowingtheprocedurethat .be followed by the Agent to Government as observed has to in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, it para 24' 9

72. With tJle above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and LAOP.No.ll of 2021 is transferred from the file of Agent to Government, * Khammam to the competent Civil Court at Khammam. The Agent to Government is hereby directed to transmit the entire case file relating to LAOP.No. 1 7 of 2O2l 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. //TRUE COPY// Sd,. MOHD. ASSISTANT REG MAIL TRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Agent to Government, Khammam 2. The Civil Court at Khammam 3. One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri R R Kalyan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies vNen 611L & t HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ( {ir,e srat o^ ( -) if,,o 1f ififl 2[25 7 7 o -ai + ..--o t a)r::,),i..;C ORDER TRCMP.No.381 ot 2023 J ATLOWING THE TRCMP €