ORDER
C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. The short question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the suit is maintainable by a Scheduled Tribe against the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation represented by its Senior Branch Manager, Khammam, before the Court of Agent to the Government at Khammam.
2. Few facts, which are necessary for deciding the said issue, may be noted as under:
It appears that the 1st respondent herein filed a suit O.S. No. 56 of 2003 before the learned Agent to Government at Khammam under Rule 42 the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 read with Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Code for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and premises, for recovery of possession and for damages against the petitioner herein. While so, the petitioner defendant filed I.A.. No. 9 of 2004 in the said suit under Rule 15 (g) of A.P. Agency Rules read with Order XIV Rule 2(2) and Section 151 of CPC praying the Agency Court to decide the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue to meet the ends of justice.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Finance Corporation is a statutory body incorporated under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 with the main object of extending financial assistance to the prospective entrepreneurs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Corporation is a Government undertaking and any infringement of rights by the Corporation can be challenged by way of writ in this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India and as such, neither the civil Court nor the Agency Court have got jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit with regard to any action taken by Corporation or its officials. Therefore, the Court of Agent to Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit challenging the action taken by the Corporation. At the most, a suit is maintainable before a civil Court and not before the Court of Agent to Government.
4. In the said I.A., respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the very I.A.. is mischievous and misconceived. In fact, defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement have not raised this plea of jurisdiction to entertain the suit by the Agent to Government. Apart from this, defendants 1 and 2 filed Transfer C.M.P. No.22 of 2004 seeking to transfer the said suit from the file of the learned Agent to Government at Khammam to the file of the learned District Judge, Khammam, wherein it was impliedly admitted that the Agent to Government has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant is, in fact, playing delaying tactics and deliberately procrastinating the litigation. The allegation made by the defendants in the said I.A. that the acts of the Corporation should be challenged only in this Court, that too by way of Writ petition, is untenable After considering the pleadings and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Agent to Government dismissed the petition holding that the petitioners have failed to make out a case and the Agent to Government is absolutely vested with jurisdiction over the matters of civil nature in Agency tracts. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5. Sri Y. Vivekanand, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the 3rd respondent-Agent to Government (Agency Court) has no exclusive jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner is not tribal entitling the 1st respondent to approach the 3rd respondent-Agent to Government by misinterpreting the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short 'the Regulation'). The order passed by the Agency Court is illegal having regard to the fact that the petitioner-Corporation is seeking to exercise powers conferred upon it by virtue of the provisions under the State Financial Corporations Act. By virtue of Section 46B of the said Act brought into force with effect from 1-10-1956, all the provisions of the Regulation will have necessarily to yield including non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 of the Regulation to the said Act. The State Financial Corporations Act being a Central enactment will have to prevail over and above any provisions made by the State legislation as held by this Court in A.S. Prasad v. A.P. State Financial Corporation : 2003(1)ALD637 . The impugned order of the 3rd respondent is in gross violation of the Regulation framed by the Corporation in seeking to finance the tribals in the scheduled areas and in furtherance of the same, the petitioner-Corporation transferred the assets of the sick industry concerned in favour of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. He also placed reliance on the Judgment in Ashifaquddin v. Mohd. Azizuddin : AIR1978AP354 (D.B.) and submitted that there is nothing in Rule 3 of the Agency Rules from which it could be inferred that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts to entertain suits of civil nature between non-tribals is barred expressly or by necessary implication. The word 'only' occurring in Rule 5(2) cannot give rise to an inference that the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred to try suits of a civil nature between non-tribals. Learned Counsel taking inspiration from the said Judgment stated that whether it is by a non-tribal against a non-tribal or by a tribal against a non-tribal or a tribal against an institution like the petitidnef-Corporation, the suit is not-maintainable before the Agency Court and the Jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred, either expressly or impliedly, by the Regulation, when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the civil Court.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Court of Agent to Government and stated that since the property is situated in the notified agency area, the 1st respondent can maintain a suit for declaration of title before the Agency Court and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes arising in the notified agency areas. In fact, a learned single Judge of this Court is Second Appeal No. 420 of 1988 held that a suit before the civil Court is not maintainable and only an Agent to Government has got jurisdiction, in view of notification issued under Section 1(3) of the Civil Courts Act. The Civil Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in relation to the matters wherein the parties are tribals or non-tribals, when the cause of of action arises within the scheduled areas.
7. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the entire material made available on record including the impugned Order.
8. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the impugned Order does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the Agency Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that a suit is maintainable by a tribal, before it To decide the issue involved, it may be necessary to notice Section 4 of the Regulation, which reads as under:
4 Suits against a member of a Scheduled Tribe to be instituted in the Agency Courts: Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts, every suit against a member of a scheduled tribe instituted after the commencement of this Regulation shall be instituted only in the Court having jurisdiction over the Agency tracts.
9. Under Section 3 of the Regulation, against a member of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) a suit shall be instituted only in the Court having jurisdiction in the agency tracts. The District Collector, Agent to Government and Special Deputy Collector in the cadre of Revenue Divisional Officer are conferred with the powers of Courts to adjudicate upon the matters in relation to members of Scheduled Tribes in agency tracts. In the present case, the 1st respondent- plaintiff and the 4th respondent-purchaser are STs and the rice mill, admittedly, is situated in the agency area. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 4 of the Regulation, only against a tribal when the matter requires to be adjudicated, the suit is maintainable before the Agency Court; in other words, a tribal cannot maintain a suit in the Agency Court when the same is filed against a non-tribal or Agency of the Government like the petitioner, even though the property is situated in the agency area, cannot be accepted The petitioner is the financier, They lent money to the 1st respondent and his land was mortgaged in favour of the petitioner-Corporation. Accordingly, the Corporation exercised the power of adjudication and executed the decree. Therefore the further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Agency Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by a tribal cannot be accepted. Therefore, the suit before the Agency Court alone is the proper remedy. In this regard, it may be necessary to refer the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in G.L.N. Murthy v. State of A.P 1971 (2) ALT 123 (D.B.) wherein the constitutional validity of the Regulation was challenged. While holding that the Regulation is constitutionally valid, regarding the objects and the scheme of the Regulation, it was observed as under:
The object and the scheme of the Regulation, as may be seen from the provisions of the Regulation, is undoubtedly intended for the protection of the interests of the Scheduled tribes who indisputably inhabit in the scheduled areas reasonable in question. Article 19(5) of the Constitution provides for restrictions being imposed, if it can protect and serve the interests of the scheduled tribes. The scheduled areas, during the British regime, received special protection and several measures were taken not only to put down lawlessness in the hill tracts in order to maintain law and order, but also to improve their social and economic conditions. The scheduled areas became a paradise of exploitation for the money lenders and the indebtedness of the tribes was an ever increasing phenomenon and the only legacy that the Tribes would pass on to their heirs was indebtedness and indebtedness, the ultimate result of it being that they were fast losing their property in discharge of their heavy indebtedness.
10. The whole purpose of the enactment of the Regulation is to protect the interests of the tribals in the agency tracts. As noticed above, the property is situated in the agency tract and the plaintiff as well as the purchaser of the rice mill are tribals and as such, entertaining of the suit by the Agency Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The provisions under the Regulation read with Amended Act 1 of 1970 and Rule 3 of A.P. Agency Rules, 1994 (sic. 1924) lay down that the Courts contemplated under the aforementioned Rules shall, subject to the provisions contained therein, have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In Ashifaquddin's case (2 supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that 'it is well settled that the provisions barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts should be strictly construed and unless there is a specific provision barring the jurisdiction of the civil Court, the Courts cannot infer bar of jurisdiction by a process of implied reasoning. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred either expressly or impliedly by the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts even though the dispute is between the non-tribals residing in the Scheduled Area or the dispute between the non-tribals relates to land situate in a schedule area'. In the above Judgment, the lis inter se the non-tribals was considered. Apart from that, as noticed in the Judgment of this Court in S.A.No.420 of 1988, dated 7-9-1994 the Notification dated 30-10-1972 under which it was declared that the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 is not applicable in Agency Areas was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashifaquddin's case (2 supra). Therefore 'rightly in S.A.No.420 of 1988 it was held that view of the Notification dated 30-10-1972 under which the Act was not brought into force in the scheduled areas, the Civil Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suits in relation to the matters, which arose in scheduled areas irrespective of the fact whether the parties are tribals or non-tribals when the cause of action arises within the scheduled areas. Further, in the said second Appeal, the only question that fell for consideration was whether the suit filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Kothagudem was not maintainable. Therefore the whole issue was examined vis-a-vis Section 4 of the Regulation and the Notification issued by the Governor as to non-application of the A.P. Civil Courts Act to any the Scheduled Areas, The contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the said Second Appeal was that the Subordinate Judge's Court at Kothagudem was constituted under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Civil Courts Act. The Act shall come into force in such area and on such date as the Government may, by notification appoint and they may appoint different dates for different areas and for different provisions of this Act. In exercise of the powers under the said Section 1(3), the Government issued a notification dated 30-10-1972 bringing into force the provisions of the Act with effect from 1-11-1972 in the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh except in the Scheduled Areas of the State. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the parties are residents of scheduled areas. In view of the notification dated 30-10-1972 under which the A.P Civil Courts Act was brought into force in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, except in the scheduled areas, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in relation to the matter arose in scheduled areas irrespective of the fact whether the parties are tribals or non-tribals when the cause of action arose within the scheduled area.
11. Thus, it gives rise to yet another facet of law. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Agency Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is to be accepted, in view of the notification issued by the Government under Section 1 (3) of the A.P. Civil Courts Act on 30-10-1972, the Civil Courts also have no jurisdiction over the matters in scheduled areas. Thus, the respondent-plaintiff is left with no remedy. As such, looking from any angle, it cannot be said that the Agency Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As stated above the object of the Act is to protect the interest of people living in the tribal areas, particularly, the Tribes; the sine qua non being the location of the property in dispute within the agency tract. Therefore, the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam has jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit of this nature instituted by a tribal against the State Finance Corporation. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; but with no order as to costs.