THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5196 of 2002 DT.23-11-2012 Between: Project Officer, I.T.D.A, Kotaramachandrapuram (K.R.Puram), Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Kakarla Jageesh s/o Papa Rao Proprietor: Royal Enterprises Dippakayalapadu, Koyyalagudem mandal, West Godavari District & 2 ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt Vasudha Nagaraj Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITIN No.5196 of 2002 DT.23-11-2012 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and decree dated 13-8- 2001 in O.S.No.41 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Judge, West Godavari District. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the said suit, which was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of money. The suit was decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay Rs.30,944-46 ps with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant-Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Kotaramachandrapuram (K.R.Puram), Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District filed this revision on the ground that the Judgment under revision is bad in law as the learned District Judge, West Godavari District, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the Agency Court alone had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in a scheduled area. It is contended by Ms.Vasudha Nagaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) does not apply to the scheduled areas in the State and therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of a dispute arising in a notified agency area. It is stated that under Section 1(3) of the Act, the Government issued notification dated 30-10-1972 bringing into effect the provisions of the Act from 1-11- 1972 in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh except for the scheduled areas. It is therefore contended that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits, in view of the said notification issued by the Government under Section 1(3) of the Act. She further contended that Regulation 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Act 1 of 1970, stipulates that every suit against a member of a schedule tribe shall be instituted only in the agency court having jurisdiction over the agency tribes. Earlier, when the matter came up before a learned Single Judge, the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashifaquddin v. Mohd. Azizuddin[1] and the subsequent Judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court i n A.P.State Financial Corporation v. Paida Jogaiah[2] a n d M.Venkateswara Rao v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam[3] were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In view of the judgments rendered by learned Single Judges in A.P.State Financial Corporation (supra 2) and M.Venkateswara Rao (supra 3) contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench in Ashifaquddin’s case (supra 1) and keeping in view the importance of the issue involved, the learned Single judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. Thereafter, the Division Bench, by order dated 23-07-2009, referred the matter to a Bench of higher strength to examine the validity of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Ashifaquddin’s case (supra 1). That is how the matter is placed before us. When the matter was taken up on 7-9-2012, as it was brought to our notice that as against the Judgment in M. Venkateswara Rao (supra 3), special leave petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were pending adjudication, we deferred the matter awaiting the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Civil Appeals filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were against the orders of this Court dated 27-6-2000, 2-8-2000 and 25-8-2000. The Judgment dated 27-6-2000 relates to the case of M.Venkateswara Rao (supra 3). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by Judgment dated 25-09-2012, dismissed Civil Appeal Nos.5028 to 5038 of 2004 and 371 of 2007 holding as follows: “The High Power Committee headed by the Chief Minister of the State and comprising of Minister for Tribal Welfare, Minister for Law, Chief Secretary to Government, Principal Secretary to Government Tribal Welfare, Principal Secretary to Government Social Welfare, Principal Secretary to Government Home, Secretary to Government Law & Justice, Secretary to Government Legal Affairs, Member of Legislative Assembly Rampachodavaram, Commissioner Tribal Welfare and Lawyer and President, Girijana Yuvajana Samkshema Sangam, R.C.Varam met on July 24, 2012 and , after extensive deliberations and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances, decided to accept one of the alternatives suggested by Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, namely, retention of the existing system as obtaining in the Scheduled Areas in complete substitution of the Civil Courts Act. Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh, submits that the decision taken by the High Power Committee is in accord and conformity with the notification issued on October 30, 1972 effective from November 1, 1972 declaring that the 1972 Act does not apply to the Scheduled Areas of the State. 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. 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 vent 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).” In view of the aforesaid Judgment dated 25-09-2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5028 to 5038 of 2004 and 371 of 2007, the Judgment dated 8-2-1978 of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashifaquddin’s case (supra 1) does not lay down correct law and shall stand overruled. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 13-08-2001 of the learned District Judge, West Godavari District in O.S.No.41 of 1993 is set aside. However, liberty is given to the 1st respondent-plaintiff to lay a claim before the appropriate Agency Court afresh, and if any such claim is made, the said Agency Court shall decide the same uninfluenced by the Judgment under revision. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Date: 23.11.2012 Grk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR (The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) CIVIL REVISION PETITIN No.5196 of 2002 DT.23-11-2012 [1] AIR 1978 A.P 354 [2] [2006 (2) AT 13] [3] 2000 (5) ALD 32