APHC010394432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20073 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-31 [3580] Sunkara Chinna Venkateswarulu and others ...Petitioners Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V. V. Satish Advocates for Respondents : GP for Revenue – R1, R3 to R5 & R7 Mr. Pala Karthi Kiran – R6 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 30th April 2026 LISA GILL, CJ. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside orders dated 07.06.2023 and 12.12.2023 passed by learned Lokayukta and consequent order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Nandyal. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner No.1, respondent No.6 and Late Sri Sunkara Peda Venkateswarulu are siblings. They had jointly purchased the land, as described in writ petition, vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.1993. Ac.2.00 cents of land each was mutated in favour of three brothers and pattadar passbooks were issued in the year 2001. Thereafter, Sri Peda Venkateswarulu died, and his rights of 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 property devolved upon his two sons, who, in turn, sold their land of Ac.2.00 cents in favour of petitioner No.1. Similarly, respondent No.6 also sold his land in favour of petitioner No.1 by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 06.07.1998, after receiving sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-, and possession of property was handed over to petitioner No.1. 2.2 Thereafter, petitioner No.1 applied for mutation of property in his favour. During said proceedings, respondent No.6 appeared before Tahsildar/respondent No.5 herein and accepted the sale in favour of petitioner No.1, and gave his consent for mutation of property in favour of petitioner No.1. Consequently, mutation was thus carried out vide order dated 02.11.2002, and pattadar passbooks were issued to petitioner No.1, and since then, he continues to be in peaceful possession of said property. Subsequently, partition of property was carried out between petitioner No.1 and his sons i.e. petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3, land was mutated in favour of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents each. 2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that Writ Petition No.6436 of 2015 was filed by respondent No.6 herein to the effect that representation dated 04.10.2010 challenging the mutation in petitioner’s favour was not being decided. Respondent No.4 had passed an order directing respondent No.6 to approach the civil court. Revision Petition challenging said order was filed and the matter was remitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 to conduct a fresh enquiry. 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 With a grievance that no action was being taken, above writ petition was filed, which was disposed of by learned Single Bench of this Court, directing respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders, if not so done, and granting liberty to respondent No.6 to approach the civil court seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks in terms of Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971. 2.4 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.941 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.6 raising allegations that no action was being taken by respondent No.4 in conducting an enquiry. It is further submitted that counter-affidavits have been filed by Tahsildar/respondent No.5 herein as well as petitioner herein in the said writ petition, and that said matter is still pending adjudication. 2.5 In the meantime, it came to notice of petitioner, upon being summoned to the office of Tahsildar on 03.09.2024, that orders dated 07.06.2023 and 12.12.2023 had been passed by learned Lokayukta in complaint No.1582 of 2021 filed by respondent No.6, which culminated in passing of order dated 29.08.2024 by Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate/respondent No.3 herein. 2.6 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that O.S.No.248 of 2010 was filed by him before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, which came to be dismissed. Appeal vide A.S.No.6 of 2018 challenging the 4 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 same is stated to be still pending before the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. 2.7 Learned Lokayukta, while taking note of the fact that W.P.No.941 of 2020 filed by respondent No.6 is still pending, and that A.S.No.6 of 2018 filed by petitioner is also pending in respect of same matter, directed departmental action against the then Tahsildar – K. Mathew (since retired), observing that cancellation of pattadar passbook had been carried out incorrectly. Thereafter, order dated 12.12.2023 was passed, relevant portion of which reads as under: “The complainant submitted a representation dated 12.12.2023 in the form of review petition requesting this Institution to issue necessary direction to the District Collector, Nandyal District to take immediate steps to restore the Pattadar Pass book of the complainant which was illegally cancelled by the erring officials, otherwise the complainant would suffer great loss and hardship. Send a copy of aforesaid representation to the District Collector, Nandyal District and the District Collector, Nandyal is hereby recommended to look into the matter and take appropriate steps to restore the Pattadar Pass book of the complainant, which was illegally cancelled by the earlier erring officials against whom the disciplinary action has already been proposed and submit compliance report, in order to rectify the mistake committed by the then Tahsildar.” As a consequence thereto, Joint Collector vide memo dated 29.08.2024 directed Revenue Divisional Officer of Nandyal and Tahsildar of Owk Mandal to take immediate steps for restoration of pattadar passbooks as 5 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 per directions issued by learned Lokayukta, Kurnool, and to submit a compliance report. 2.8 Aggrieved therefrom, present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that said orders directing specific action to be taken as detailed above are beyond the purview of learned Lokayukta, especially in view of pending civil suit and writ petition, which were duly brought to its notice. Learned counsel further argues that present petitioner was not even called upon before learned Lokayukta and orders have been passed without even a hearing being afforded to him. It is thus prayed that present writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner while submitting that impugned orders have been correctly passed in accordance with law. Dismissal of writ petition is therefore sought. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 6. It is a matter of record that civil dispute is pending between the parties in respect to subject land. Respondent No.6 had earlier filed W.P.No.6436 of 2016 raising a grievance about appropriate orders not been passed on his representation regarding incorrect issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioner No.1 herein. The said writ petition had been disposed of on 6 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 14.11.2022 directing the concerned official to pass appropriate orders in File RCE No.55 of 2010 expeditiously. Liberty was also granted to respondent No.6 herein to approach civil court seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks granted in favour of petitioner No.1 herein. A.S.No.6 of 2018 filed by present petitioners challenging judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 in O.S.No.248 of 2010 is also pending adjudication. 7. It is a settled position that, in view of Section 12(1) of Lokayukta Act, 1983, it is not open to learned Lokayukta to issue positive directions as done in present case; it is a recommendation which can be forwarded after completion of investigation. Coordinate Bench of this Court in its decision dated 10.07.2019 in the case of Kalakada Sugunamma Vs. The A.P. Lokayukta (W.P.Nos.28005 and 24048 of 2011), has held as under: In view of the law declared by the Courts in various judgments referred above, the impugned orders passed by the Lokayukta are without jurisdiction and such orders cannot be passed at the verification stage and at best, the findings can be recorded and recommendations can be made only after completion of investigation under Section 12 of the Act read with Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, but issuing such direction at the verification stage is an illegality, thereby such orders are liable to be set aside. Both parties have raised various contentions with regard to consideration of report of Lokayukta in earlier writ petitions and appeals preferred against such order passed in writ petitions, but the same would not come in the way of this Court to pass any order in the present writ petitions for the simple reason that the report of Lokayukta referred in the 7 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 writ petitions was not the subject matter of dispute in earlier writ petitions, but the Court incidentally referred and accepted the contentions of respondent No.7. When the legality of the report or directions issued by the Lokayukta were not under challenge in the writ petitions and appeal, the acceptance of such recommendations or directions of Lokayukta and consideration of the same in the writ petition are of no consequence. Since the directions issued by the Lokayukta are challenged in the present writ petitions, they have to be decided independently notwithstanding the findings recorded by the learned single Judge of this Court in writ petitions and affirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeals. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeal, has no bearing on the issue involved in the present writ petitions since the petitioners challenged the power of Lokayukta to pass such orders, which would directly affect the rights of the petitioners. On an overall consideration of material on record, it is clear that the orders passed by the Lokayukta are beyond the powers conferred on it and the same are liable to be set aside.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its decision dated 30.11.2023 in the case of Additional Tahsildar and another Vs. G. Urmila and others, 2023 INSC 1044, has held as under: “9. Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is concerned a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector had opined that in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, Lokayukta was not competent to issue positive direction. He can only submit a report with the concerned authority with its recommendations. They only have recommendatory jurisdiction. A Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority over other competent forums created under different statutes, as each of those statutes provide its own remedial steps such as appeal, revision etc. The parties need to follow that procedure. The 1999 Act is not meant to override those procedures. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was referred to in the case in hand, however, the same was ignored. 8 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 10. In a subsequent judgment in District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and others, the Division Bench of the High Court reiterated the law laid down in Sudha Devi K. case (supra). It was opined that the complainants therein had not availed the statutory remedies regarding rectification of the mistakes in the revenue record. When a relevant statute provides for hierarchy of remedies, those should have been resorted to. The action of the Lokayukta was found to be without jurisdiction.” 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed in complaint No.1582 of 2021 by learned Lokayukta and subsequent impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Nandyal, are clearly unsustainable. 9. Said orders are thus set aside, with liberty to respondent No.6 to avail/pursue such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs 9 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.20073 of 2024 59 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.20073 of 2024 Dt: 30.04.2026 kbs