Vade Seetharamulu vs Singareni Collieries Company Limited

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff assailing the order dated 10.02.2014 in OS No.37 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

The suit in OS No.37 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of damages with the following prayer:

a) to pass a decree for declaration to declaring the plaintiff’s land is in occupation of defendant No.1 company and consequential recovery of damages of Rs.75,000/-;

b) to order future damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/-per annum from the ate of suit till the compensation is paid under Land Acquisition Act;

c) To award costs of the suit;

d) To order such other relief or reliefs the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The defendants have filed the written statement, issues were settled, when the evidence of the plaintiff was in progress, the defendants have raised an objection that the suit schedule property – dry land in Survey No.341/2 to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas of survey sub-division of VTC and Coal Dumping Yard of S.C. Company Limited, Manuguru under patta No.341/1589 and Khasra No.341/1584 and extent of Ac.1.09 guntas and 341/1366 and Khasra No.341/1336 to an extent of Ac.1.11 guntas, total extent of Ac.2.20 guntas under S.C. Company delivered under panchanama dated 30-05-1993 is within the agency area and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

As such in view of Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and considering the prayer in the suit it was held by the trial Court that the suit property is situated at Manuguru which is an Agency area, the relief claim is to declare that the plaintiff’s land is in occupation of the defendant No.1 and consequential recovery of damages and that the plaintiff is seeking the main relief to declare that the plaintiff’s land is in occupation of the defendant No1. Therefore, since the main relief sought is only against the suit schedule property situated in scheduled area, defendants 1 and 3 are also shown as residents of Munuguru, the defendant No.2 is only shown as resident of Kothagudem it was held that the trial Court has no jurisdiction over the scheduled area.

Feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, the present civil revision petition is filed alleging that the plaintiff belongs to Koya, a schedule tribe, he is the owner of the suit schedule property stated above. The respondent- M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited has obtained the possession of the suit land as per the panchnama dated 30.05.1993, but failed to pay the compensation. The revision petitioner has also invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No.20194 of 2010 seeking a direction for initiating the land acquisition proceedings, the suit is filed for the relief of recovery of damages and compensation, since the Head Office of the defendant-company is situated at Kothagudem and that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem has got jurisdiction.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in OS No.37 of 2011.

The plaintiff has filed the original suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff’s land is in occupation of the first defendant company and for consequential recovery of damages. Undisputedly, the suit schedule property is situated at Munuguru, which is an Agency area. Therefore, the trial Court while relying on the principles laid by the Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grammena Bank and others Vs. Medi Narayana and others (2013) 11 SCC 362 returned the plaint holding that the objection taken by the defendants is sustained and that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The Apex Court in the above decision while dealing with the similar facts held that the Court established under Civil Courts Act, 1972 cannot be conferred any territorial jurisdiction over the scheduled areas and the decrees passed in the Civil Courts were nullity in relation to cases where the cause of action arose in the scheduled areas.

Undisputedly, the suit schedule property is in the scheduled area. The defendants 1 and 3 are also residents of scheduled area. Though the defendant No.2, Chairman and Managing Director is having their Head Office at Kothagudem, since the main relief sought for is in respect of the declaration declaring the plaintiff’s land is in the possession of the first defendant-company and the relief of damages is only consequential relief, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court in passing the said orders as such it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, confirming the order impugned dated 10.02.2014 in OS No.37 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.