IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Ms. G. ROHINI, J.
Saini Lakshmi and another -Appellants
Versus
Bolliepalli Janardhan @ Janardhan Chary and others -Respondents
Writ Petition No.22643 of 2006
Decided on 2-11-2006.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Govt. Pleader for Social Welfare for the Respondents.
A.P. Agency Rules – Rule 3 – Writ of Prohibition – Entertainment I.A without jurisdiction – Writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition contending that the entertainment of I.A. in O.S. by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, District is without jurisdiction – Held, Division Bench was also dealing with a case where the dispute was between non-tribals in respect of the land situated in a scheduled area and having considered all the relevant statutory provisions it was held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits between non-tribals – Court is not inclined to issue a Writ of Prohibition as prayed for – Writ Petition Dismissed
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition contending that the entertainment of I.A.No.2602 of 2006 in O.S.No.932 of 2006 by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District is without jurisdiction.
2. The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.523 of Manuguru Village and Mandal of Khammam District, which is declared as an Agency Area.
3. On a complaint made by the 3rd respondent herein, eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and after due enquiry the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam passed an order dated 17-10-2005 directing ejectment of the petitioners herein. It was further ordered that the land in question shall be taken into Government custody and shall be assigned to the eligible tribals. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent herein preferred appeals before the Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Pending the said appeals, the 3rd respondent herein filed W.P.No.14114 of 2006 alleging that the Appellate Authority did not grant stay of operation of the order of ejectment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the property in question till the disposal of the appeal pending on the file of the Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam.
4. While so, the 3rd respondent herein filed O.S.No.932 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District seeking an injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the very same property which is the subject-matter of Appeals pending before the Additional Agent to the Government. Having entertained the said suit, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, by order, dated 27-10-2006 granted an order of temporary injunction in I.A.No.2602 of 2006.
5. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed contending that since the land in question is situated in Agency Area, the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem has no jurisdiction, but the Agency Courts constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 alone have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T. Ananthacharyulu v. Prl. Subordinate Judge contended that the Civil Court at Kothagudem shall be restrained from proceeding with O.S.No.932 of 2006 by issuing a Writ of Prohibition.
7. There can be no dispute about the well-settled legal principle that where the facts in a given case clearly establish that the Court lacks total jurisdiction, this Court would not hesitate to issue a Writ of Prohibition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. However, in the case on hand, though there is no dispute that the suit schedule land is situated in an Agency Area, admittedly the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent herein who are parties to O.S.No.932 of 2006 are non-tribals. A clear finding was recorded to that effect by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam in the order of ejectment dated 17-10-2005 passed under Section 3 (2) of Regulation 1 of 1959. The learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any provision from A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 which excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts so far as the dispute between the non-tribals are concerned notwithstanding the fact that the suit schedule land is situated in an agency area.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.360 of 1976 and batch, dated 8-21978 {1978 (1) ALT 56 (Notes on Recent Cases)} having considered an identical issue arising under the provisions of th
Thallapaka Ananthacharyulu Vs Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.