MADAKAM VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SUB JUDGE KOTHAGUDEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Heard the respective contentions submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents and also the Standing Counsel for the High Court and Government Pleader for Home. Srr A. Rangacharyulu, learned Counsel also assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

(2.) The brief facts in these two Writ Petitions are that the petitioners are the owners of the small extents of agricultural lands in the scheduled area of Bhadrachalam Division i.e., agency area and they are Scheduled Tribes and their lands were acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal of "Taliperru Reservoir Project" and the Land Acquisition Officer Special Deputy Collector (LA) I.T.P. and Railways, Khammam, has conducted award proceedings and paid the compensation to the petitioners and all the petitioners having dissatisfied with the determination of the compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to the Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge) Kothagudem, for adjudication and determination of the compensation and accordingly the matters are said to have been referred to the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District in the year 1991 and O.Ps. were numbered but the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, declined to dispose of the said O.Ps. on the ground that the Subordinate Court has no jurisdiction over the matters in the scheduled areas and aggrieved by the action of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, these two Writ Petitions have been filed stating that the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem has the territorial jurisdiction over Bhadrachalam Scheduled Area, and therefore, they are entitled to seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem in not adjudicating the O.Ps. as illegal and for a direction to dispose of the same.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, filed common counter in the two writ petitions stating that though the territorial jurisdiction over the Revenue Taluks of Bhadrachalam and Nuguru were conferred on the Subordinate Court, Kothagudem by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.571, Home (Courts-A) dated 18th September, 1981, but the Government issued another G.O.Ms. No.198, Home (Courts-A), dated 20th April, 1989 and as per the said G.O., the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem has no territorial jurisdiction over the area of Bhadrachalam and Nuguru Revenue Taluks, and therefore, the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, has no jurisdiction over the matter to entertain the O.Ps. Keeping in view of the deletion of the territorial jurisdiction over Bhadrachalam and Nuguru Taluks by the said notification dated 20-4-1989, the Court has no jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act over the said scheduled areas and therefore, the Court expressed its opinion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matters arising out of those Taluqs of Bhadrachalam and Nuguru. It is further stated that the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, also addressed a letter dated 6-4-1993 to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh informing of the said fact and also informed the Subordinate Court that it has no territorial jurisdiction over the areas of Bhadrachalam and Nuguru Taluqs unless a fresh notification is issued by the Government. Thus, the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, justified his action in not entertaining the said O.Ps.