Telangana High Court
Parsa Kishan Rao Died vs Special Deputy Collector La on 2 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
TR.C.M.P. No.365 of 2023
ORDER:
This Transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of O.P.No.1 of 2005 from the file of Agent to Government, Khammam 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 respondents 6 to 9, 11 to 13 and 27.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that O.P.No.1 of 2005 pending on the file of Agent to Government, Khammam is a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'Act') made by the 1st respondent. The petitioner No.8 is the deponent herein and he is the son of petitioner No.7. The petitioner No.7 and petitioners 9 to 12 are siblings and the 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 2 of petitioner No.3. Originally the deceased petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 7 are the pattedars, owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.244 and 245 admeasuring Ac.184.11 guntas situated at Usirikayalapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District and each one of them having equal 1/3rd share. The said land was acquired by the 1st respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam, for depillaring Operations & long wall of JK-5 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 20.09.1995 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed by Award No.7/96-97 dated 20.03.1997. However, in view of the rival claims made in respect of Ac.86.11 guntas of land in Sy.No.244 & 245 of Usirikayalapalli Village, a reference under Section 30 of the Act was made by the 1st respondent to the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Kothagudem and the same was numbered as O.P.No.44 of 1999 and the said reference was returned by the said Court on the ground that the village is an agency area and returned the same to the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam and numbered as O.P.No.1 of 2005.
4. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in the original reference the names of 3 petitioners 1, 3 and 7 who are the original pattedars, the names of respondent Nos. 2, 26, 30, 29, 6, 5, 25 and the husband of respondent No.25 were only there. However, as petitioner No.1 died, his son petitioner No.2 was brought on record as his legal representative. Similarly petitioners 4 to 6 were brought on record as L.Rs of deceased petitioner No.3, the deponent and petitioners 9 to 12 were brought on record as L.Rs of deceased petitioner No.7. The respondents 27 and 28 were brought on record as the L.Rs of deceased respondent No.26. The respondent No.29 died and his wife was brought on record without giving any separate number. The respondent No.5 died and her son was brought on record as her L.R, without giving separate number. The name of husband of respondent No.25 was deleted without any reason in the subsequent proceedings and all other respondents were impleaded on the basis of implead petitions filed by them decades after the reference, without issuing notice to the contesting respondents and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court principles underlying in Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the proceedings are conducted as administrative proceeding contrary to the procedure and parties are 4 impleaded as claimants contrary to law and it is not known to the petitioners as on the date how many persons were impleaded. Further as the Agent to Government is also discharging the functions of District Collector, the matters are pending for the past several decades and no procedure is followed under the Land Acquisition Act. As the reference is of the year 2005, prayed this Court to transfer the said O.P. to the 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. Initially, the reference was though sent to the civil Court, the Civil Court returned the file 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, 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.751 of 2002.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the main contention of 5 learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioners who have parted with their land in view of acquisition under section 4 (1) notification are waiting for compensation for the last 20 years and the Agent to Government is unable to handle the matter. He is not following the procedure and impleading the respondents. The judgment of the Division Bench in Jalagam Sitarama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1, 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 :
"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 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 law and procedure as would have been applicable to that suit if it were to continue before the Agency Court."
7. In view of the observations made in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to 1 1978 AIR (AP) 82 6 transfer O.P.No.1 of 2005 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 2002 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 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 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, the 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 judgment 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 Nagarjuan 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 first 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 the matters pertaining to agency area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Agent to Government has to decide the civil cases. In the 7 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. The matter is of the year 2005 and till today, there is no progress in the said O.P. Further, the record shows that the Agent to Government without following the procedure allowing the implead petitions. Implead petitions in References cannot be allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf, S.J.Syed Zakrudeen and another Vs Syed Zindasha and Others 2 , wherein in para 12 it was held as under :
"The reference was made only in respect of the amount of compensation. No reference has been made in regard to the right of persons to whom it was payable or apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The claim of the first respondent has been noticed by us. He has laid his claim on the title of the property. He has prayed for proper and effective implementation of the decree passed by a civil Court. He allowed mismanagement of the wakf property by the first appellant."
10. Generally, cases cannot be transferred from Agent to Government to the Civil Court, in view of the bar in jurisdiction, whereas in the judgment in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 22 it was observed as under :
2 (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 280 8 "22. It was also 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 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 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 Court 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 (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 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."
11. 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 Government is not following the procedure and not disposing of the matter during the last twenty years, considering the extreme circumstances of this case, as it is a L.A.O.P., the same is transferred to the 9 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 the Agent to Government as observed in Jalagam Sitarama Rao's case, in para 24.
12. With the above observations, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and O.P.No.1 of 2005 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 O.P.No.1 of 2005 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.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :02.01.2025 Rds