Telangana High Court

State Of A.P., vs Smt. Parvati Bai on 1 July, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

           A.S.NOs.1649 OF 2002 AND 2525 OF 2003 &
          CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.102383 OF 2002

                       COMMON JUDGMENT


      Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, and the

parties are common, they are heard together and are being disposed of

by this common judgment.



      2. Brief facts of the case are that on the eve of Mahashivaratri

festival at Sirpur (U) village, Mandal Sirpur, Adilabad district, there

was jatara, and it is alleged that the defendant No.2 who is having a

house with the jathara precincts, was running stall and organizing

games in his house, and several persons visited his house for the

purpose of entertainment, and the deceased Kanaka Rao also visited

the said house on 3.3.1997. At that time, police constables by names

Rajlingu and Rameshwar visited the said house and threatened the

persons gathered there. As a result, persons started running helter-

skelter due to the fear, and there was stampede.        The deceased

Kanaka Rao also ran, but to his misfortune, he fell in the well dug by

the 2nd defendant and died.      As the 2nd defendant did not take

precautionary measures to guard the said well, and as the District
                                        2


Administration did not take precautionary measures for the safety of

general public attending jatara, the dependants of the deceased

Kanaka Rao, filed O.S.No.5 of 1998 on the file of District Judge at

Adilabad claiming compensation against the State, represented by its

District Collector, and also against one Aatram Bhagwant Rao, who

organized game in his house, claiming an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-,

and also sought to make both the defendants jointly and severally

liable.



          3. The defendants filed written statements denying the liability.



          4. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2002

partly decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.4,09,500/- and made both

the defendants jointly and severally liable to an extent of 50% each.



          5.   Assailing the judgment and decree of the trial court, the

State, which is the 1st defendant in the suit filed A.S.No.1649 of 2002

and the 2nd defendant in the suit filed A.S.No.2525 of 2003.



          6.    This court on 30.07.2003 granted interim stay and

subsequently on filing of a vacate petition by the claimants in

CMP.No.1918 of 2004 in A.S.No.1649 of 2002, vide order dated
                                       3


24.07.2006 directed the appellant to deposit 1/4th of the decretal

amount, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security.



          7.    The claimants have also filed Cross-Objections (SR) No.

102383 of 2003 seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the

trial court.



          8. Now, both the appeals as well as cross-objections have come

up for hearing.



          9. Learned counsel for the appellants have mainly contended

that the cause of action arose in Scheduled Area, and hence the civil

court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and hence the decree

passed by it, is a nullity.       In support of his contention, learned

counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in NAGARJUNA

GRAMEENA BANK v. MEDI NARAYANA1.



          10. Sri Satish Desh Pande, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants did not dispute the above submission of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants.



1
    (2013)4 SCC 362
                                       4


      11. In the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, it was held

that courts established under Andhra Pradesh civil Courts Act, 1972

have no jurisdiction over the scheduled areas and the decrees passed

by the Civil Courts were nullity in relation to cases where whole cause

of action arose in the Scheduled Areas, and that the persons, who

have decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the civil

Court(s) may lay their claim before the Agency Court(s), and in the

event of such claims being laid before the Agency Court(s), the same

shall be decided by the Agency Court(s), uninfluenced by any

judgment, decree or order passed by the civil Court(s). The relevant

portion of the judgment is thus:



           "1. Before the High Court in a group of civil revision petitions
   filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the
   issue under consideration was the applicability of the Andhra
   Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act 19 of 1972) (for short "the 1972
   Act") to the Scheduled Areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. One of
   the contentions raised before the High Court was that the courts
   established under the 1972 Act cannot be conferred any territorial
   jurisdiction over the Scheduled Areas and the decrees passed by the
   civil courts were nullity in relation to cases where whole cause of
   action arose in the Scheduled Areas.

          2. The High Court, by the impugned judgments dated
   27-6-2000 [Medi Narayana v. Nagarjuna Grammena Bank, CRP No.
   2888 of 1998, decided on 27-6-2000 (AP)] , 2-8-2000 and 25-8-2000
   [Mohd. Monthazeer v. Sri Pragathi Chit Funds, CRP No. 2723 of
   2000, decided on 25-8-2000 (AP)] , has declared the jurisdiction of
   the civil courts functioning in the Scheduled Areas from 1972
   onwards as illegal and void. It was declared consequently that all
   the judgments, decrees and orders passed by the civil courts in the
   Scheduled Areas from 1972 onwards were null and void.
                                         5

           3. The above judgments of the High Court are impugned in
    these civil appeals.

             ....

9. We have carefully considered the matter and we are satisfied that the judgments under challenge in this group of civil appeals do not require any interference.

10. It is, however, clarified that those persons who have decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the civil court(s) may lay their claim before the agency court(s). In the event of such claims being laid before the agency court(s), the same shall be decided by the agency court(s) uninfluenced by any judgment, decree or order passed by the civil court(s).

11. The civil appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs."

12. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court it is clear that

the civil court has no jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in

the scheduled areas. In the present case there is no dispute that

cause of action arose in the scheduled area, and hence the civil court

has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the decree passed by it is

a nullity.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and decree of

the trial court is set aside, and the appeals are accordingly allowed,

relegating the respondents / claimants to lay their claim before the

agency court, which shall be decided in accordance with law as