APHC010229362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 12445/2023 Between: Koppula Srinivasa Reddy and Others The Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. NAMBURI SREEMANNARAYANA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 21.03.20 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 26.05.2021 passed by respondent no.1 respondent no.5, whereby a direction was given to respondent no.2 Collector to initiate immediate action to take over the lands, being arbitrary, without power or jurisdiction and contrary to the procedure envisaged under W.P.No.12445 of 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 12445/2023 Koppula Srinivasa Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): NAMBURI SREEMANNARAYANA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 025 (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 26.05.2021 by respondent no.1-Lokayukta in Complaint No.856/2018 respondent no.5, whereby a direction was given to respondent no.2 Collector to initiate immediate action to take over the lands, being arbitrary, without power or jurisdiction and contrary to the procedure envisaged under HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.12445 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 26.05.2021 in Complaint No.856/2018 filed by respondent no.5, whereby a direction was given to respondent no.2-District Collector to initiate immediate action to take over the lands, being arbitrary, without power or jurisdiction and contrary to the procedure envisaged under HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.12445 of 2023 2 the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Rules, 1984 (for short, ‘the Rules’). 2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel for Sri Namburi Sreemanarayana, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 3. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that Lokayukta exceeding the power and authority conferred by the Act and Rules issued the impugned orders and therefore, the said orders being ultra vires are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision in S.Jagadishwar vs. Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & others1. 4. On the other, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel, justified action of the Lokayukta in issuing impugned orders contending that through the said orders the District Collector is directed to initiate action pursuant to the orders passed by Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the LRAT’) in LRAT No.1198 of 1976 which had attained finality by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no question of exceeding 1. 1996(4) ALD 282 (DB) HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.12445 of 2023 3 jurisdiction as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The material on record would indicate that earlier, when Lokayukta directed the Sub-Registrar not to make any transactions in respect of the subject survey numbers during pendency of complaint of respondent no.5 before the Lokayukta, the petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24781 of 2021. A coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition in part vide orders dated 30.11.2021. Wherein it was held that Lokayukta has no power to issue any mandate either interim or final and therefore, Lokayukta cannot issue such a direction to Sub Registrar. 7. In S.Jagadeswar vs. Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that before recommending initiation of action, service of notice and opportunity of hearing is mandatory. 8. In Raj Kumar Bharatlal vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others2, this Court held as follows: 2. 2014(5) ALD 106 (DB) HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.12445 of 2023 4 “From the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has been invested with the power of investigation, and while doing so, as required under Section 12 of the Act, a report has to be prepared, by recording findings and recommendations, and be communicated to the competent authority. Thus, it is manifest that Hon’ble Lokayukta has no power to issue any mandate either interim or final. We therefore, accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Lokayukta is not empowered to do what has been done by it.” 9. The above observations make it clear that Hon’ble Lokayukta has no power to issue any mandate either interim or final. 10. Through the orders impugned the Lokayukta directed the District collector to initiate immediate action to take over the surplus lands from the declarants or his vendors after due notice to them as per law, as determined by the LRAT in 1198/76, dated 17.12.1977, which had attained finality by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1617 of 1979 and batch. 11. A plain reading of the above direction clearly shows that the collector was only directed to take action pursuant to the orders passed by LRAT, which had attained finality by orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the Collector, in specific terms, was directed to take action as per Law. The same is nothing but issuance of a direction to execute the orders that had attained finality and that too by duly following the procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, the orders impugned cannot be termed either as a mandate or a positive direction afresh, as contended by the HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.12445 of 2023 5 learned counsel for the petitioners. The observations made in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. This writ petition lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR