( 1 ) THE facts in each of these ten writ petitions are substantially similar, and the question which falls for decision is also common. Therefore, all these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together, and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE private respondents in each of the writ petitions claim to be tribals and owners and occupiers of certain lands which are the subject matters of these writ petitions and situate in the Agency tracts of Adilabad District. The petitioners also claim to be the owners and occupiers of the same lands. Thus, there is a serious title dispute between the petitioners and the contesting private respondents over the lands. When the matters stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradcsh initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act , to acquire these lands for the public purpose, for submergence under the Vatti-Vagu Project by issuing Section 4 (1) Notification and invoking the special power of urgency under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 17 of the Act in the year 1996. Declaration under Section 6 was also made in the year 1996 itself. Eighty per cent of compensation was also paid to the petitioners as envisaged under sub-section (3-A) of Section 17 of the Act. In the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) and the declaration made under Section 6, the names of the contesting private respondents in these writ petitions are shown as occupiers of the lands, whereas the names of the petitioners are shown as owners of the lands. In other words, the petitioners as well as the contesting private respondents arc parties to the land acquisition, proceedings initiated under the Act. The private contesting respondents filed suits in the Court of the Agent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh-cum-Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. In the suit filed by the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 10445 of 1997 the following reliefs arc sought: " (i)That the plaintiff be declared the absolute owner of the suit land bearing Sy. No. 55 (04-68) situated at village Mendrumeda of Tiryani Mandal District, Adilabad. (ii) That, further the plaintiff be declared entitled to receive the total compensation in respect of suit land in the event of passing of such award by the Land Acquisition Officer, Utnoor, District Adilabad, Any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff is entitled in the circumstances of the case may be awarded, for the ends of justice. "

( 3 ) IDENTICAL reliefs are sought by the other respondents also. The petitioners were impleaded as defendants to the suits. On service of notice in the suits, each of the petitioners-defendants filed a petition in the concerned suit raising the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the suit itself. The petitioners-defendants contended that since the acquisition proceedings were already initiated, special power of urgency was invoked under Section 17 (4) and (5) of the Act and the possession of the land was already taken over, the suits filed by the contesting private respondents are not maintainable and the suits are impliedly barred by the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the contesting respondents-plaintiffs contended that the lands in question situate in Agency tracts and therefore the suits filed by them are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Agency Court and therefore, the suits are maintainable. The Agency Court after referring to the respective contentions of the parties rejected the petitions filed by the petitioners observing thus :"only after the claim for declaration of title over the suit land is decided, he can have cause of action to agitate before the Land Acquisition Officer for making payment of compensation at the time of award enquiry, under Section 11 of the Act, Otherwise, the plaintiff has no voice to agitate before the Land Acquisition Officer for making payment of compensation. "

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appea