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